James F. Hartmann

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 71.4% yes

  69,814 yes · 28,007 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2015 Interim Survey Report The Nineteenth Judicial District commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees (10-0) that Chief Judge James F. Hartmann MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Hartmann was appointed to the Nineteenth District Court in August 2002 and took the bench on March 1 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Hartmann was a Deputy District Attorney for the Weld County District Attorney’s Office for twelve years, with his last three years serving as the Chief Deputy District Attorney. Judge Hartmann received his undergraduate education form the University of Northern Colorado, in Greeley, Colorado and his law degree from the University of Idaho in 1989. Judge Hartmann presides over water and probate cases, and fulfills his responsibilities as Chief Judge of the 19th Judicial District. Judge Hartmann has been active in various committees of importance to the community and has worked to improve the effectiveness and understanding of a multitude of legally related areas, including, service with victims’ rights, community corrections, water, probate, domestic violence, and protection of children. Judge Hartmann has utilized his experience to mentor new Judges, not only in the 19th Judicial District but also throughout the State of Colorado. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hartmann, reviewed opinions authored, observed court proceedings reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation process, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared before Judge Hartmann. A total of 92 attorneys responded and 80 commented on his performance and 72 non-attorneys responded to the surveys with 53 expressing their opinion of Judge Hartmann’s performance.  Of those responding 95% responded that Judge Hartmann met performance standards, 2% responded Judge Hartmann did not meet performance standards, and 2% had no opinion as to whether Judge Hartmann met performance standards (Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding). Judge Hartmann presided primarily over water and probate cases during this term and assisted other Judges with their dockets as needed. Based on the Commission’s review, (as set forth above), the Commission’s overall evaluation is that Judge Hartmann has demonstrated compliance with judicial standards and meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories. While some respondents to the survey were critical of Judge Hartmann these were by far in the minority and the Commission as a whole did not observe any proceedings, or evidence any performance that did not meet the established performance standards. Judge Hartmann received high marks for his interaction with parties in his courtroom and patience with those who appeared before him. While a small percentage responded he sometimes “hurries” cases along in an effort to manage the caseload, the overall responses were very positive. Judge Hartmann is described as being very fair and calm in the courtroom and exhibits an evenhanded presentation of the facts of the cases as well as a sound understanding of the law in his rulings. Judge Hartmann has shown a capability to make legally complicated matters understandable to the lay party in his courtroom and often goes out of his way to explain the legal “technicalities” in such a manner that the untrained can comprehend the issues. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Hartmann meets judicial performance standards.
• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 70.6% yes

  64,012 yes · 26,669 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: 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 Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Chief Judge James F. Hartmann BE RETAINED by a vote of 10-0. Judge Hartmann was appointed to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court bench on August 26, 2002. Prior to his appointment, Judge Hartmann was a Deputy District Attorney for the Weld County District Attorney’s Office for twelve years, with the last three years serving as Chief Deputy District Attorney. Judge Hartmann received his law degree from the University of Idaho in 1989 and his undergraduate degree from the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado in 1986. The judge presides over 10% civil, 5% mental health, 10% probate, and 75% water cases. Judge Hartmann has been active on numerous committees of importance to the community. His service reflects interests in victims’ rights, community corrections, domestic violence and protection of children. Judge Hartmann has been active in legal education for family law, criminal law, probate law, and water law while continuing his own education to further his expertise on the bench. Judge Hartmann has judged regional high school mock trial competitions and participates in the UNC Pre-Law Mentoring Program. Judge Hartmann makes presentations at local services clubs, high schools, Aims Community College, and the University of Northern Colorado. Judge Hartmann writes prompt, well researched, clear and concise opinions. He is respectful of all parties and conducts court with authority and bearing. Judge Hartmann modifies his schedule, allows attorneys to openly participate in productive discussion, and models careful review of stipulated decrees. He actively attends to process with regard to clearing cases with an emphasis on probate cases and older water court cases. He supports settlement conferences between parties that allow the parties to agree on many points. This in turn helps to expedite the court process. Judge Hartmann manages a constrained budget in a conservative, efficient, and productive manner. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 95% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 1% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 96% recommended to retain and 4% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 93% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 3% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 96% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2006 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 71.8% yes

  41,407 yes · 16,292 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that District Court Judge James F. Hartmann BE RETAINED. Judge Hartmann was appointed to the Weld County District Court bench on August 26, 2002. Prior to his appointment, Judge Hartmann was a deputy district attorney for the Weld County District Attorney’s Office for twelve years, with the last three years serving as Chief Deputy District Attorney. Judge Hartmann received his law degree from the University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho in 1989 and his undergraduate degree from the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado in 1986. He currently presides over felony criminal cases, juvenile appeals and extradition matters. Prior to his current judicial assignment, he did preside over domestic relations and dependency and neglect matters. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Hartmann from attorneys and non-attorneys which included comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also considered a self-evaluation prepared by Judge Hartmann and conducted a personal interview with Judge Hartmann. The Commission was extremely impressed by Judge Hartmann’s responses and insight into his role as a judicial officer during the interview. Judge Hartmann approaches each case individually and works toward maintaining a fair and unbiased courtroom. He has a great respect for the law and feels one of his primary responsibilities is to promote public confidence in the judicial system. He further expects all attorneys and parties to conduct themselves in a professional, civilized manner in his courtroom. Professional commitments include participation in a variety of community and legal committees to include victim’s rights boards, community corrections board, domestic violence coalition, and judging high school mock trial tournaments. Judge Hartmann received high marks in almost every category, especially in areas regarding his prompt rulings, communication skills, application and knowledge of the law and treating all parties fairly and courteously. Of the respondents to the questionnaire, 96% of attorneys recommended retention with 85% “strongly” supporting retention and 98% of non-attorneys recommended retention with 94% “strongly” supporting retention.

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable James F. Hartmann, Jr. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable James F. Hartmann, Jr. Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Hartmann: 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 fifth 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 James F. Hartmann, Jr. received an overall combined average grade of 3.74 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.68, to the overall average grade received from non- attorney respondents, 3.80, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Hartmann Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.74 3.68 3.80 Sample Size -- 254 215 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Hartmann’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Hartmann Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 3.71 3.56 35 3.85 109 2010 3.69 3.71 64 3.66 32 2011 3.76 3.70 70 3.82 43 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.73 3.72 85 3.74 31 Overall 3.74 3.68 254 3.80 215 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.26. 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 Hartmann’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Hartmann Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.94 104 48% 3.67 111 52% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. (Sample Size 254) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Sample Size = 254 A B C D Fail DK/NA Hartmann, Jr. Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 72% 15% 2% 1% 1% 9% 3.74 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 86% 9% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.82 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 72% 16% 3% 1% 0% 7% 3.73 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 16% 6% 3% 1% 2% 3.58 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.72 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 18% 4% 2% 0% 2% 3.65 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 71% 15% 7% 3% 1% 2% 3.55 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 5% 4% 1% 33% 3.33 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 56% 33% 7% 0% 0% 4% 3.50 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.51 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 86% 9% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.85 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.77 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 91% 6% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.86 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 88% 7% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.81 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 82% 10% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3.72 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 74% 14% 2% 4% 1% 4% 3.63 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.76 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 69% 20% 5% 4% 1% 2% 3.56 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 83% 9% 4% 2% 0% 2% 3.76 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 83% 8% 3% 1% 0% 6% 3.82 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.71 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.68 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Hartmann, Jr. Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 7% 23% Completely neutral 59% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 33% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 81% 57% Recommend retain 14% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 1% 9% Recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 95% 79% Neither 1% 9% Total Not Retain 4% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.68 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.72 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.74 case after trial. 3.35 3.82 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 3.73 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.24 3.51 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.65 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 3.55 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.33 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.50 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.77 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.85 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.69 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.76 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.86 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 3.81 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.72 neutral manner. 3.26 3.63 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.71 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.56 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.76 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.82 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 7% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 59% Completely Neutral 49% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hartmann, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? 81% Strongly recommend retain 57% 14% Recommend retain 22% 1% Judge All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Hartmann, Jr. Judges* Total Retain 95% 79% 4% Neither 1% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 4% 12% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James F. Hartmann, Jr. * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. (Sample Size 215) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Sample Size = 215 A B C D Fail DK/NA Hartmann, Jr. Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 89% 7% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3.83 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 91% 4% 0% 2% 1% 1% 3.83 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 88% 7% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3.78 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 87% 7% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.81 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 88% 7% 1% 2% 0% 2% 3.84 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 83% 7% 2% 0% 3% 5% 3.74 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 66% 5% 0% 1% 1% 26% 3.80 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 80% 6% 3% 0% 1% 9% 3.80 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.80 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 87% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.82 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 86% 9% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.80 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 90% 7% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.86 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.83 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 83% 9% 2% 2% 0% 3% 3.78 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 89% 5% 2% 0% 1% 3% 3.86 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 81% 6% 3% 1% 0% 9% 3.84 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 87% 4% 2% 1% 1% 4% 3.82 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 84% 9% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.80 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.82 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 83% 8% 1% 1% 2% 5% 3.76 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 71% 7% 0% 1% 2% 18% 3.75 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 82% 5% 1% 1% 3% 7% 3.74 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.75 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.80 3.62 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Hartmann, Jr. Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% 9% Competely neutral 88% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.04 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 10% Competely neutral 88% 78% Lenient sentencing total 6% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.03 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% 74% Recommend retain 17% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% 5% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 5% Total Retain 87% 87% Neither 7% 5% Total Not Retain 7% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.80 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.81 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.83 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.83 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.78 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.78 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.80 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.84 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.74 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.80 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.80 their case. 3.64 3.83 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.82 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.86 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.82 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.78 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.86 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.84 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.82 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.80 little wasted time. 3.54 3.75 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.76 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.75 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.74 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.04 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.03 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hartmann, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? 70% Strongly recommend retain 74% 17% Recommend retain 13% 7% Neither retain nor not retain Judge All Dist 5% Hartmann, Jr. Judges* 0% Total Retain 87% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 7% 5% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District 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 District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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 District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges 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 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 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 next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 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 District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges 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 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges 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 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 next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 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 Hartmann is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding District Judges surveys for all district judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 51 31 5 0 15 32.6% Defense Attorneys 28 18 0 0 10 35.7% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 31 14 3 0 14 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 377 116 46 0 215 65.0% Total Attorneys 487 179 54 0 254 58.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 51 17 16 0 18 51.4% Law Enforcement 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Defendant 109 47 57 0 5 9.6% Civil Litigant 146 72 20 5 49 38.9% Witness 19 9 5 0 5 35.7% Other 25 7 5 4 9 45.0% Jurors 222 97 11 10 104 49.3% Employees, including Interpreters 20 3 2 0 15 83.3% Probation Officers 10 0 0 0 10 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 603 252 117 19 215 44.2% Grand Total: 1090 431 171 19 469 51.0% 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 District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3259 1426 748 0 1085 43.2% Defense Attorneys 3585 1696 482 0 1407 45.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 25 14 2 0 9 39.1% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2791 1004 327 0 1460 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4006 1545 780 0 1681 52.1% GAL 11 0 0 0 11 100.0% Total Attorneys 13677 5685 2339 0 5653 49.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16384 7182 8195 112 895 10.9% Civil Litigant 8222 4671 2146 126 1279 21.1% Witness 196 90 49 3 54 36.7% Other 231 105 45 14 67 36.0% Jurors 10278 4073 804 154 5247 55.4% Employees, including Interpreters 567 108 90 10 359 75.3% Probation Officers 432 118 78 1 235 66.4% Total Non-attorneys 46435 21813 14253 909 9460 29.4% Grand Total: 60112 27498 16592 909 15113 34.7% * Includes only the District 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 District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 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. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9460 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District 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
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    95%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    94%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable James F. Hartmann, Jr. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr., 164 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 133 agreed they had worked with Judge Hartmann, Jr. enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 133 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.81 3.79 3.84 3.75 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.81 3.79 3.84 N/A 3.75 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 95% 96% 94% 90% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 95% 96% 94% 0% 90% standards No, does not meet performance 2% 3% 2% 0% 3% standards No opinion 2% 1% 4% 0% 7% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.73 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.70 3.80 N/A 3.70 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.84 3.90 N/A 3.85 Diligence 3.77 3.83 N/A 3.75 Demeanor 3.89 3.83 N/A 3.73 Fairness N/A 3.82 N/A 3.73 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 200 0 92 46% 13% Total Non- 370 47 72 22% 26% Attorneys Staff 84 0 32 38% 34% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 286 47 40 17% 20% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hartmann, Jr., 92 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 80 agreed they had worked with Judge Hartmann, Jr. enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 80 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hartmann, Jr. on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.73 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.87 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.69 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3.71 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge James F. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Hartmann, Jr. Promptly issuing a decision on the 54 16 3 1 1 5 80 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 75 1 1 1 1 1 80 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 53 16 1 -- 1 9 80 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 64 8 4 1 1 2 80 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hartmann, Jr. on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.69 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 3.66 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 4 are similar 3.20 3.8 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 3.65 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 62 15 1 -- 2 -- 80 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 60 17 1 -- 2 -- 80 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 similar Being fair and impartial to both 70 8 -- -- 2 -- 80 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 60 13 4 1 1 1 80 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hartmann, Jr. on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.84 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.91 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 3.78 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge James F. Hartmann, A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Jr. Making sure all participants 73 2 1 1 -- 3 80 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 67 9 2 -- 1 1 80 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hartmann, Jr. on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.89 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 3.94 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.9 Treating participants with respect 3.44 3.85 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 77 -- 1 1 -- -- 79 dignity Treating participants with respect 74 3 1 1 -- -- 79 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 72 4 -- -- 2 -- 78 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Hartmann, Jr. on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.77 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.61 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.83 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.91 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 56 19 2 -- 2 1 80 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 70 6 -- 1 1 2 80 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 72 3 -- -- 1 4 80 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Hartmann, Jr. meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Yes, meets performance 96% standards No, does not meet 3% performance standards No opinion 1% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hartmann, Jr., 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 12 agreed they had worked with Judge Hartmann, Jr. enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 12 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 14 ## Page 17 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.92 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge James F. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Hartmann, Jr. Overall performance as a 11 1 -- -- -- 3 15 judge *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr., 72 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 53 agreed they had worked with Judge Hartmann, Jr. enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 53 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 16 ## Page 19 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 17 ## Page 20 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.83 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.82 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.86 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.76 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.83 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 45 3 -- 2 -- 3 53 Treating participants with respect 48 1 1 -- 1 2 53 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 44 5 -- 1 1 2 53 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 48 3 1 -- 1 -- 53 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.82 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.8 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 3.76 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 3.93 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.83 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge James F. Hartmann, A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Jr. Giving participants an 47 2 -- -- 2 2 53 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 44 4 -- -- 2 3 53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 38 3 -- -- -- 12 53 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 41 4 -- -- 1 7 53 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.9 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.88 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 3.9 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.9 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 45 3 -- 1 -- 3 52 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 48 3 1 -- -- -- 52 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 47 3 1 -- -- 1 52 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.83 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.78 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.87 for cases 3.61 3.79 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3.86 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.89 wasted time 3.51 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 38 6 -- -- 1 7 52 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 41 2 2 -- -- 7 52 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 42 2 2 -- 1 5 52 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 37 4 1 -- -- 9 51 Managing court proceedings so that there is 43 2 -- 1 -- 6 52 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.8 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.75 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.85 outside pressure 3.56 3.84 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 41 5 -- 1 1 4 52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 43 4 -- 1 -- 4 52 pressure Being able to identify and 46 2 1 -- 1 2 52 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Hartmann, Jr. meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Yes, meets performance 94% standards No, does not meet 2% performance standards No opinion 4% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 24
• 2012 cycle
  • 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaannnn,, JJrr.. 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable James F. Hartmann, Jr. Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Hartmann: 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. James F. Hartmann, Jr. May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, district judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.62, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.80, Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr.’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.71. Judge Hartmann Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.71 3.62 3.80 Sample Size - 130 516 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Hartmann from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Hartmann’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Hartmann Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 3.67 3.49 28 3.84 125 2007 3.81 137 2008 3.70 3.67 3 3.72 113 2009 3.71 3.56 35 3.85 109 2010 3.69 3.71 64 3.66 32 Overall 3.71 3.62 130 3.80 516 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 66%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for district judges was 1 There were no surveys conducted based on cases that closed in 2006. See methodology section for more details. 1 ## Page 5 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Hartmann’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2005 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges. Judge Hartmann Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All District Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2005 3.90 91 73% 3.67 34 27% 3.84 3.25 2007 3.94 81 59% 3.63 56 41% 3.86 3.31 2008 3.90 73 65% 3.39 40 35% 3.87 3.30 2009 3.93 80 73% 3.61 29 27% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.95 14 44% 3.43 18 56% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.92 339 66% 3.56 177 34% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Hartmann’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaan,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113300)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Sample Size = 130 A B C D Fail DK/NA Hartmann, Jr. Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 72% 16% 2% 0% 0% 10% 3.78 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 79% 13% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.73 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 72% 14% 3% 0% 0% 12% 3.77 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.53 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.70 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 66% 22% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.54 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 58% 18% 8% 5% 2% 10% 3.39 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 44% 16% 5% 4% 4% 28% 3.28 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 38% 25% 2% 0% 2% 33% 3.44 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.41 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 84% 12% 2% 2% 0% 2% 3.80 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 73% 16% 4% 1% 2% 4% 3.65 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.73 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 88% 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3.80 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 78% 12% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3.63 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.55 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 70% 15% 4% 4% 2% 5% 3.57 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 67% 19% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 80% 12% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3.73 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 78% 9% 2% 1% 2% 9% 3.77 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.67 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Hartmann, Jr. Judges Sample Size = 130 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 5% 26% Completely neutral 59% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 36% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 87% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 94% 88% Total Not Retain 5% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 87% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 1% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 94% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 1% 4% Total Not Retain 5% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.62 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.70 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.78 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.73 proceedings. 3.41 3.77 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.53 3.26 3.41 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.54 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.39 3.14 3.28 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.44 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.73 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.80 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.65 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.64 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.80 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.63 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.55 in a neutral manner. 3.29 3.57 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.67 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.50 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.73 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.77 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 5% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 59% Completely Neutral 47% 36% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hartmann, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 87% Strongly recommend retain 72% 7% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge All Dist Hartmann, Jr. Judges 2% Total Retain 94% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 5% 12% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 87% Strongly recommend retain 69% 7% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Judge All Dist 1% Hartmann, Jr. Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 94% 84% Undecided or DK 1% 4% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 5% 12% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaan,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 551166)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Sample Size = 516 A B C D Fail DK/NA Hartmann, Jr. Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 85% 10% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.82 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 89% 7% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.84 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 85% 9% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3.78 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.78 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.81 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 86% 10% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3.82 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 83% 10% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.78 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 7% 0% 1% 1% 38% 3.79 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 9% 3% 1% 1% 5% 3.80 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.80 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 87% 9% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3.84 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 86% 11% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.84 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 88% 9% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.86 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.85 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 73% 18% 4% 1% 0% 3% 3.69 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 88% 8% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.87 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 3% 1% 0% 11% 3.74 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 84% 8% 1% 1% 0% 5% 3.85 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 78% 16% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.75 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.78 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 79% 11% 4% 0% 1% 5% 3.77 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 74% 8% 2% 1% 1% 15% 3.79 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 81% 9% 2% 1% 1% 6% 3.78 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.78 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.80 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Hartmann, Jr. Judges Sample Size = 516 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 7% 8% Competely neutral 85% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.06 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 5% 8% Competely neutral 86% 82% Lenient sentencing total 9% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.02 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 91% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 96% 95% Total Not Retain 3% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 88% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 93% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 5% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.80 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.81 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.82 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.84 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.78 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.78 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.80 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.82 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.78 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.79 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.80 or her case. 3.69 3.85 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.84 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.84 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.86 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.78 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.69 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.87 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.74 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.85 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.75 little wasted time. 3.58 3.78 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.77 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.79 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.78 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.06 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.02 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hartmann, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Judge All Dist Hartmann, Jr. Judges Total Retain 96% 95% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 88% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 3% Judge All Dist Undecided 5% Hartmann, Jr. Judges Total Retain 93% 90% 1% Undecided 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 21 ## Page 25 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Hartmann 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 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 47 33 1 0 13 28.3% Defense Attorneys 43 24 3 0 16 40.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 44 16 1 0 27 62.8% Other Attorneys Civil 144 71 0 0 73 50.7% GAL 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 280 145 5 0 130 47.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 145 55 56 5 29 32.6% Other 94 45 28 3 18 27.3% Law Enforcement 133 53 22 0 58 52.3% Defendant 383 166 184 1 32 16.1% Civil Litigant 77 43 13 1 19 29.7% Witness 10 5 2 0 3 37.5% Other 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 14 6 7 0 1 14.3% Jurors 572 199 26 8 339 62.1% Employees 25 5 4 0 16 76.2% Total Non-attorneys 1455 578 342 18 516 46.4% Grand Total: 1735 723 347 18 646 46.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 5963 3735 108 3 2117 36.2% Defense Attorneys 9005 5407 125 0 3473 39.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 310 260 2 1 47 15.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9795 4329 410 17 5039 53.7% Other Attorneys Civil 6107 3564 63 4 2476 41.0% GAL 101 43 5 0 53 55.2% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 193 60 22 0 111 64.9% Total Attorneys 31474 17398 735 25 13316 43.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 149 85 40 3 21 19.3% Witness 13212 6730 4190 587 1705 18.9% Other 5595 3441 1430 55 667 16.0% Law Enforcement 13854 7651 3233 295 2674 25.2% Defendant 40047 19046 17527 241 3226 14.3% Civil Litigant 23266 13519 5107 291 4337 23.9% Witness 618 306 139 15 158 33.0% Other 679 317 150 18 194 36.7% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2763 1447 1003 4 309 17.6% Jurors 48708 18523 2771 544 26770 58.3% Employees 905 283 121 66 435 55.5% Total Non-attorneys 149796 71348 35711 2119 40496 35.5% Grand Total: 181270 88746 36446 2144 53812 37.2% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 13316 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.40 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 24% 11% 6% 4% 8% 3.14 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 20% 10% 6% 4% 21% 3.02 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 23% 9% 4% 3% 26% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 24% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 12% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 7% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 20% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.33 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 19% 7% 3% 2% 14% 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 13316 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 40496 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.65 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.66 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.67 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.64 4d.Being prepared for cases. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.71 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 1% 3% 18% 3.64 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 40496 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.04 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaannnn,, JJrr.. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable James F. Hartmann, Jr. Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Hartmann: 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 three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non- attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 James F. Hartmann, Jr. received an overall combined average grade of 3.74 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.68, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.79, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Hartmann Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.74 3.68 3.79 Sample Size - 172 434 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 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 Hartmann’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Hartmann Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.81 137 2008 3.70 3.67 3 3.72 113 2009 3.71 3.56 35 3.85 109 2010 3.69 3.71 64 3.66 32 2011 3.76 3.70 70 3.82 43 Overall 3.74 3.68 172 3.79 434 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 district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.88, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Hartmann’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Hartmann Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Hartmann Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.93 250 58% 3.60 184 42% 3.88 3.28 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaan,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 117722)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Sample Size = 172 A B C D Fail DK/NA Hartmann, Jr. Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 74% 12% 1% 1% 0% 12% 3.80 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 84% 11% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3.80 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 73% 14% 3% 0% 0% 10% 3.78 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 16% 5% 2% 1% 3% 3.62 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.75 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 20% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3.63 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 72% 14% 8% 3% 1% 2% 3.57 3.19 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 17% 5% 5% 2% 34% 3.28 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 41% 7% 0% 0% 3% 3.43 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.48 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 85% 10% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3.84 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 76% 15% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.70 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.77 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 91% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3.85 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 85% 8% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3.75 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 79% 11% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3.67 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 74% 14% 2% 4% 1% 5% 3.64 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.73 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 71% 18% 5% 4% 1% 2% 3.58 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 83% 9% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3.76 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 81% 7% 2% 1% 1% 8% 3.82 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.72 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.68 3.29 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 James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Hartmann, Jr. Retention Sample Size = 172 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 8% 24% Completely neutral 58% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 35% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% 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 90% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Total Retain 96% 87% Total Not Retain 4% 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 89% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 1% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Total Retain 95% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 1% 5% Total Not Retain 4% 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.68 Overall Average Grade 3.29 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.75 3.29 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.80 case after trial. 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.80 proceedings. 3.40 3.78 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.62 3.22 3.48 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.63 relevant facts. 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.57 3.19 3.28 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.43 when circumstances are similar. 3.15 3.77 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.84 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.70 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.33 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Retention Judges Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.73 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.85 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.50 3.75 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.67 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.64 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.72 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.58 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.76 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.82 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 8% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 58% Completely Neutral 49% 35% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hartmann, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 90% Strongly recommend retain 71% 6% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Judge Retention Hartmann, Jr. Judges 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 96% 87% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 12% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain 67% 6% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Including Und/DK Respondents 1% Undecided or DK All Dist 5% Judge Retention Hartmann, Jr. Judges 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 95% 83% 6% Undecided or DK 1% 5% Total Not Retain 4% 12% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaan,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2233)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Sample Size = 23 All District No James F. Retention Evaluations of Judge Hartmann, Jr. = 14 A B C D Fail Grade Hartmann, Jr. Judges Judge Hartmann, Jr. in terms of overall performance as a judge. 61% 0% 0% 0% 0% 39% 4.00 3.68 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. While 23 out of 28 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJaammeess FF.. HHaarrttmmaan,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 443344)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Sample Size = 434 A B C D Fail DK/NA Hartmann, Jr. Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 85% 11% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.81 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 88% 7% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.82 3.69 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 84% 9% 3% 2% 1% 1% 3.76 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 82% 12% 3% 1% 0% 2% 3.77 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.79 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 85% 10% 1% 2% 0% 2% 3.81 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 82% 10% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.77 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 56% 7% 0% 0% 1% 34% 3.78 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 80% 9% 3% 0% 1% 7% 3.79 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.79 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 86% 10% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.83 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 85% 11% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.83 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 87% 9% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.85 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.84 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 74% 16% 4% 2% 0% 4% 3.69 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 87% 9% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.85 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 73% 12% 3% 1% 0% 11% 3.74 3.62 4d. Being prepared for cases. 84% 8% 2% 1% 0% 5% 3.84 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 80% 14% 2% 0% 1% 3% 3.77 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.78 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 79% 11% 3% 1% 1% 5% 3.76 3.59 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 72% 8% 2% 1% 1% 15% 3.77 3.62 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 80% 9% 2% 2% 1% 7% 3.76 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.76 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.79 3.64 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 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. James F. All District Hartmann, Jr. Retention Sample Size = 434 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 7% 9% Competely neutral 85% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.07 0.05 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 5% 10% Competely neutral 85% 80% Lenient sentencing total 10% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.02 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 90% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 96% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 87% 83% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 93% 89% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 5% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.79 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.79 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.65 3.81 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.82 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.76 manner. 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.77 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.59 3.79 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.81 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.77 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.78 themselves. 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.79 or her case. 3.67 3.84 Q3. Overall Communications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.83 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.83 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.85 can hear what's being said. 3.72 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Retention Judges Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.78 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.62 3.69 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.85 proceedings. 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.74 3.62 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.84 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.77 little wasted time. 3.56 3.76 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.76 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.59 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.77 possible outside pressure. 3.62 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.76 relevant facts. 3.60 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.07 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 0.05 All District 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 -0.02 James F. Hartmann, Jr. 0.04 All District 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. James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Retention Judges 15 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Hartmann, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 90% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 6% All Dist Judge Retention 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Hartmann, Jr. Judges 2% Total Retain 96% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 87% Strongly recommend retain in office 83% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 3% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 5% All Dist Judge Retention 1% Hartmann, Jr. Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 93% 89% 2% Undecided 3% 5% 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% James F. Hartmann, Jr. All District Retention Judges 16 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding 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 district judge as an 18 ## Page 22 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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. 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 district 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 district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The 19 ## Page 23 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 Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-eight appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. 20 ## Page 24 The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, though not all 23 showed grades for every district judge. III 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. 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 21 ## Page 25 to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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 district 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 district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. 22 ## Page 26 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 Hartmann 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 district judges. 23 ## Page 27 Judge James F. Hartmann, Jr. 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 50 32 3 0 15 31.9% Defense Attorneys 32 20 0 0 12 37.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 21 11 1 0 9 45.0% Other Attorneys Civil 248 91 21 0 136 59.9% Total Attorneys 351 154 25 0 172 52.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 145 55 56 5 29 32.6% Other 94 45 28 3 18 27.3% Law Enforcement 119 51 21 0 47 48.0% Defendant 295 118 152 1 24 16.8% Civil Litigant 80 35 10 2 33 47.1% Witness 18 9 4 0 5 35.7% Other 15 4 4 4 3 27.3% Jurors 450 168 22 10 250 58.4% Employees, including Interpreters 20 3 2 0 15 83.3% Probation Officers 10 0 0 0 10 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 1246 488 299 25 434 45.8% Grand Total: 1597 642 324 25 606 47.6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2526 1265 381 0 880 41.0% Defense Attorneys 3297 1732 263 0 1302 42.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 22 13 0 0 9 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2327 1053 103 1 1170 52.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2328 1099 246 0 983 47.2% GAL 11 1 0 0 10 90.9% Total Attorneys 10511 5163 993 1 4354 45.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 52 36 10 0 6 14.3% Witness 7389 3621 2563 353 852 17.7% Other 1084 619 301 15 149 19.0% Law Enforcement 3846 2060 925 142 719 24.6% Defendant 14840 6599 7050 107 1084 13.9% Civil Litigant 6881 3945 1545 101 1290 24.2% Witness 123 58 25 1 39 39.8% Other 126 51 30 10 35 36.5% Jurors 13266 4866 907 173 7320 59.2% Employees, including Interpreters 704 135 95 13 461 75.7% Probation Officers 572 160 116 2 294 64.5% Total Non-attorneys 48883 22150 13567 917 12249 34.7% Grand Total: 59394 27313 14560 918 16603 37.0% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 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. 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4354 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 48% 20% 8% 4% 2% 18% 3.32 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 25% 11% 5% 3% 10% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 28% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 26% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.32 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 12% 6% 3% 3% 3.19 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 20% 11% 7% 5% 22% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 27% 11% 5% 3% 13% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 24% 9% 3% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 20% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 9% 6% 4% 2% 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 3% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 4% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 19% 6% 4% 2% 13% 3.41 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 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 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4354 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 12249 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 8% 2% 1% 2% 34% 3.63 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 12% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 68% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.53 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 15% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.62 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.69 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.59 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.62 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 12% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 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 33 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 12249 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 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.04 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 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 83% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 89% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 34 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Retention Judges DK/ Sample Size = 23 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. 38% 15% 1% 0% 0% 46% 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 35 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 ## Page 40 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 8th Judicial District No Grade Christopher J. Munch .... A B C D F Devin R. Odell ............... A B C D F Christie B. Phillips ......... A B C D F John David Williams...... A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 9th Judicial District Ann Frick ....................... A B C D F James B. Boyd .............. A B C D F Shelley I. Gilman ........... A B C D F Daniel B. Petre .............. A B C D F Christina M. Habas ........ A B C D F 10th Judicial District Morris B. Hoffman ......... A B C D F David W. Crockenberg .. A B C D F Kenneth M. Laff ............. A B C D F Deborah R. Eyler .......... A B C D F Catherine A. Lemon ...... A B C D F 11th Judicial District R. Michael Mullins ......... A B C D F Charles M. Barton ......... A B C D F Karen Ashby .................. A B C D F Julie G. Marshall ........... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Claude W. Appel ........... A B C D F Pattie P. Swift ................ A B C D F 4th Judicial District 13th Judicial District Theresa M. Cisneros ..... A B C D F Michael K. Singer .......... A B C D F Robert L. Lowrey ........... A B C D F Charles M. Hobbs ......... A B C D F Timothy J. Schutz .......... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Larry E. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Michael A. O’Hara, III .... A B C D F Scott Sells ..................... A B C D F 15th Judicial District David L. Shakes ............ A B C D F P. Douglas Tallman....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 41 16th Judicial District No Grade M. Jon Kolomitz ............. A B C D F 17th Judicial District Chris Melonakis ............. A B C D F Edward C. Moss ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Marilyn Antrim ............... A B C D F Christopher C. Cross ..... A B C D F J. Mark Hannen ............. A B C D F Kurt A. Horton................ A B C D F Michael Spear ............... A B C D F 19th Judicial District James F. Hartmann, Jr. . A B C D F Elizabeth Strobel ........... A B C D F Todd L. Taylor ............... A B C D F Dinsmore Tuttle ............. A B C D F 20th Judicial District Dolores D. Mallard ........ A B C D F Thomas F. Mulvahill ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District Todd J. Plewe................ A B C D F Please use the following pages or attach a sheet for comments you would like to make about any of these district judges. 2 ## Page 42 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 43 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4
• 2006 cycle
  • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJaammeess FFrraanncciiss HHaarrttmmaannnn 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable James F. Hartmann Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Hartmann: 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 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 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 April, 26 2006 The Honorable James F. Hartmann 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, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.4 Q2. Overall App & 3.4 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade James Francis Hartmann District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.8 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.4 1b. Beginning court on time 3.5 3.4 3.3 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.4 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.3 according to schedule 3.3 3.1 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.1 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.6 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.8 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.3 3.7 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.4 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.3 1i. Setting reasonable 3.3 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade James Francis Hartmann District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.4 Law 3.3 3.2 2a. Basing decisions on 3.3 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.5 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.5 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.3 findings of fact and law 3.2 2.7 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.4 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.5 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.5 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.5 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 3.3 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.5 without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.4 2j. Making decisions without 3.5 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann Average Grade District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.8 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.6 3.8 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 3.5 3d. Providing written communications that are 3.4 clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.5 3.9 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.6 sense of dignity 3.6 3.8 4b. Treating everyone 3.5 involved politely 3.5 3.4 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.6 4d. Treating participants with 3.5 respect 3.5 3.6 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.4 presence on the bench 3.4 3.5 4f. Being consistent in 3.5 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.5 courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.4 3.6 4h. Giving all participants an 3.6 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.3 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.8 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.7 communications 3.6 3.7 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.6 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.4 3.6 5a. Making tough decisions 3.4 when necessary 3.4 3.3 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.7 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.4 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.7 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.5 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 3.5 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Hartmann is toward the defense or prosecution? James Francis 0.9 Hartmann District Judges 0.8 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Hartmann's sentences? James Francis 1.3 Hartmann District Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 85% 85% 80% 78% 77% 75% 74% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 14% 13%13% 13% 11% 11% 10% 5%5% 5%5% 4% 4%4% 4%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 Hartmann Including Undecided D is t ri c t J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 59% 56% B 14% 20% 21% C 4% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 7% 14% 17% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Beginning court on time?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 64% 61% 56% B 18% 26% 28% C 14% 7% 9% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 2% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 51% 51% B 29% 28% 29% C 14% 12% 11% D 4% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 51% 53% B 32% 30% 31% C 7% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 22% 27% 27% B 22% 20% 18% C 19% 9% 7% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 37% 40% 43% Average 3.1 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 65% 63% B 21% 23% 25% C 4% 7% 7% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 46% 44% B 14% 26% 25% C 4% 10% 8% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 14% 13% 19% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 48% 48% B 19% 21% 21% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 11% 21% 24% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 56% 49% 50% B 26% 30% 30% C 11% 11% 9% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 4% 2% 1% No Grade 5% 6% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 46% 56% 53% B 32% 25% 27% C 11% 9% 9% D 7% 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 4% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 64% 60% 57% B 29% 24% 25% C 4% 8% 9% D 4% 3% 4% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 37% 28% B 14% 17% 15% C 4% 6% 6% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 36% 35% 48% Average 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 14% 28% 29% B 29% 21% 20% C 11% 10% 9% D 7% 5% 4% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 36% 33% 33% Average 2.7 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 55% 52% B 32% 28% 30% C 4% 10% 9% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 61% 58% B 18% 26% 27% C 4% 7% 8% D 7% 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.5 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 61% 57% B 18% 23% 27% C 8% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 22% 26% 33% B 4% 16% 20% C 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 70% 49% 37% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 55% 53% B 11% 21% 22% C 4% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 15% 12% 12% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 57% 54% B 25% 20% 22% C 6% 7% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 14% 13% 14% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Speaking clearly?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 75% 73% B 11% 19% 20% C 4% 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 82% 72% 71% B 14% 20% 20% C 4% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Using understandable language?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 75% 74% B 11% 20% 20% C 3% 4% D 4% 1% 1% Fail No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 3d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 55% 55% B 26% 23% 23% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 5% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 12% 12% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 89% 73% 69% B 7% 18% 20% C 4% 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 89% 72% 70% B 7% 16% 17% C 5% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 59% 59% B 21% 20% 22% C 11% 10% 9% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 4% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 71% 69% B 25% 16% 18% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 82% 66% 63% B 7% 18% 19% C 7% 7% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 64% 67% 64% B 29% 20% 21% C 4% 6% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 2% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 65% 63% B 11% 18% 19% C 11% 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 1% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 71% 69% B 18% 18% 19% C 4% 6% 6% D 3% 2% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 61% 59% B 21% 21% 23% C 7% 8% 8% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 5% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 66% 63% B 4% 13% 15% C 3% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 18% 16% 16% Average 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 48% 52% B 7% 11% 13% C 3% 4% D 1% 2% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 18% 36% 28% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 57% 52% B 18% 21% 23% C 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 12% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 55% 53% B 25% 26% 27% C 11% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 59% 53% B 18% 23% 26% C 8% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 4% 5% 7% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 58% 53% B 11% 19% 21% C 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 18% 13% 15% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 43% 41% B 25% 16% 16% C 5% 5% D 2% 1% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 18% 33% 36% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Hartmann is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 3% 3% 4 8% 5% 5% 3 8% 7% 2 8% 11% 11% 1 46% 17% 18% 38% 46% 47% -1 5% 4% -2 3% 2% -3 2% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 0.9 0.8 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Hartmann are? Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 8% 4% 4% 3 17% 6% 5% 2 8% 9% 9% 1 25% 16% 15% 42% 48% 55% -1 6% 3% -2 4% 3% -3 3% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average 1.3 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 James Francis Hartmann Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Hartmann be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 85% 78% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 11% 13% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 4% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 42 ## Page 56 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 57 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.8 Overall Average 3.6 3.5 3.9 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.6 3.5 3.8 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.5 3.9 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.8 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.5 3.8 Q5. Overall Application 3.5 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade James Francis Hartmann District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 58 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.9 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.6 3.5 3.9 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.6 sense of dignity 3.5 3.9 1b. Treating participants 3.6 politely and with respect 3.5 3.9 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.6 manner 3.5 3.8 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.5 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 59 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.8 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.6 3.5 3.8 2a. Giving participants an 3.6 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.8 2b. Treating those involved 3.6 with the case without bias 3.5 3.9 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.6 represent themselves 3.4 3.9 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann Average Grade District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 60 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.9 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.6 3.9 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.7 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.9 3b. Using language that 3.7 everyone can understand 3.6 3.9 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.7 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann Average Grade District Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 61 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.8 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.5 3.7 4a. Beginning court on time 3.4 3.3 3.9 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.7 control over proceedings 3.6 3.8 4c. Setting reasonable 3.5 schedules for cases 3.5 3.9 4d. Being prepared for 3.6 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.7 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.5 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 62 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.8 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.5 3.4 3.8 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.4 3.9 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.6 outside pressure 3.5 3.8 5c. Being able to identify and 3.6 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 James Francis Hartmann District Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 63 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Hartmann is toward the defense or prosecution? James Francis 0 Hartmann District Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 64 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Hartmann's sentences? James Francis 0 Hartmann District Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 65 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 94% 91% 90% 86% 82% 81% 80% 75% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 9% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 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 Judge Hartmann S District Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 66 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 76% 69% B 9% 16% 20% C 2% 4% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 67 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 91% 78% 72% B 6% 14% 17% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 68 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 76% 70% B 10% 14% 17% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 69 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 85% 71% 66% B 11% 16% 18% C 2% 4% 6% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 4% 5% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 70 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 88% 77% 71% B 9% 13% 16% C 4% 5% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 71 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 85% 75% 69% B 10% 13% 16% C 2% 3% 5% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 2% 2% 3% Average 3.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 72 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 47% 49% B 6% 8% 11% C 2% 4% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 41% 38% 30% Average 3.9 3.6 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 73 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 75% 68% B 9% 13% 16% C 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 4% 5% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 74 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 87% 77% 73% B 7% 14% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 75 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 88% 78% 74% B 7% 14% 18% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 76 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 89% 79% 75% B 8% 14% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 77 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 59% 55% B 21% 26% 26% C 4% 9% 10% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 3% 2% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 78 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 90% 78% 72% B 6% 16% 18% C 1% 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 2% Average 3.9 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 79 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 62% 58% B 14% 18% 19% C 2% 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 11% 12% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 80 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 84% 73% 67% B 9% 14% 17% C 1% 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 6% 7% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 81 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 73% 63% 61% B 22% 23% 23% C 1% 7% 8% D 2% 2% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 82 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 67% 62% B 9% 16% 18% C 4% 5% 6% D 2% 3% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 6% 7% 7% Average 3.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 83 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 63% 58% B 6% 12% 14% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 13% 17% 17% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 84 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Hartmann on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 85% 69% 64% B 7% 14% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 1% 3% 4% No Grade 4% 8% 8% Average 3.8 3.6 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 85 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Hartmann is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 1% 1% 3 1% 2% 2 2% 2% 3% 1 7% 4% 5% 86% 83% 78% -1 1% 3% 3% -2 1% 1% 2% -3 3% 1% 1% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 2% Average 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 86 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Hartmann are? Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 3% 3% 4 2% 2% 3 1% 2% 2% 2 4% 2% 3% 1 1% 3% 4% 88% 75% 71% -1 4% 5% 5% -2 4% 4% -3 2% 2% -4 1% 1% 1% -5 1% 2% Average 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 87 James Francis Hartmann Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Hartmann be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Hartmann Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 94% 86% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 4% 7% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 2% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 2% 5% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 89 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 2006. 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 October 2005, 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 2006 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 90 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% 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 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 91 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 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 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 92 James Francis Hartmann Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 3 1 2 0 0 33.3% Attorney For Defendant 32 21 8 3 0 72.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 8 5 2 1 0 71.4% Unknown/Other Attorney Type 2 1 1 0 0 50.0% Sub Total: 45 28 13 4 0 68.3% Defendant 105 9 54 42 0 14.3% Plaintiff 46 4 34 8 0 10.5% Law Enforcement 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Employee 20 13 4 3 0 76.5% Juror 138 91 39 8 0 70.0% Parole Officers 10 8 1 1 0 88.9% Sub Total: 320 125 133 62 0 48.4% Grand Total: 365 153 146 66 0 51.2% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 93 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name 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 don not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? 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 _ _ 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 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. 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 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 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 94 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution d. Providing written communications that are 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the DK appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 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 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral advice, what would you say? 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 ________________________________________________________ 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 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 prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? 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] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 95 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [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 [Name of Judge] 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). [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 place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 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 96 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? 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 9. What would you say are Judge [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 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [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 [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [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 lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026