Valerie Villanueva Haynes

Evaluation history

• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo

  Does Not Meet(Do Not Retain)
  VotersRetained· 62.9% yes· retained despite a “does not meet” evaluation

  32,931 yes · 19,392 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Do Not Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The 10th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Valerie Villanueva Haynes NOT BE RETAINED. Judge Haynes was appointed to the bench of the Pueblo County Court on June 28, 2011.  Prior to her appointment, Judge Haynes served as a Deputy District Attorney in the 13th, 4th and 10th Judicial Districts, was an attorney in private practice, and served in the Pueblo County Attorney's office as an Assistant County Attorney just prior to taking the bench. Judge Haynes received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Northern Colorado in 1985 and her law degree from the University of Denver in 1995. The Commission considered results from the Judicial Performance Survey, interviews with agencies, extensive courtroom observations, reviewed the written opinions, her self-evaluation, and her individual interview with the commission. Regarding the Judicial Performance Survey, all of the groups surveyed had a sufficient response rate.  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 11% recommended to retain, 74% recommended not to retain, and 15% made no recommendation.  Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 91% recommended to retain, 4% recommended not to retain, and 5% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Pursuant to our Commission rules, Judge Haynes’ survey results fall below the presumptive level for retention. Judge Haynes is polite to jurors, is perceived by the public as fair, and generally imposes consistent sentences.  Judge Haynes does regularly reject plea agreements that the attorneys have worked out, and does so without providing support for her decision.  This has contributed to a very heavy jury trial schedule, averaging almost one trial per week.  Judge Haynes imposes requirements upon the attorneys practicing in front of her that have no basis in rule or law, and she renders inconsistent rulings on legal objections.  The commission heard complaints that there are issues with efficiencies in the courtroom, including not starting her docket in a timely manner.  Judge Haynes is not willing to work with others in order to resolve issues and has created a hostile environment in her courtroom.  Proper mentoring of attorneys is noticeably lacking.  The most significant criticism evidenced throughout this process was Judge Haynes’ lack of judicial temperament.  She is described as rude, curt, having little compassion, and inappropriately raising her voice at those who appear in her courtroom.  These concerns were evident in her May 2013 evaluation survey results, and no improvement is shown in the current survey.  Judge Haynes acknowledges the results of both surveys and has only made recent attempts to improve her communication skills, which she believes are the root of the problem.  The Commission believes that Judge Haynes fails to fully understand and acknowledge her contribution to the negative survey results and comments, which leaves little reason to expect improvements to occur. Judge Valerie Villanueva Haynes’ Response: I am grateful that over 90% of the public, which includes law enforcement, parties, witnesses and jurors, believe that I am doing my job well.  It is my honor to serve the People of Pueblo County. I will continue to foster the courtroom as a place where justice is served and where attorneys may practice effectively.  The jobs of judges and attorneys are not easy, but I know that we all strive to do them well.  For the public which we all serve, I will continue to expect the highest standards from myself and the attorneys who practice before me.

Surveys & reports

• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVaalleerriiee VV.. HHaayynneess 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Valerie V. Haynes Pueblo County Judicial Bldg. 320 West 10th St. Pueblo, CO 81003 Dear Judge Haynes: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Valerie V. Haynes May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Valerie V. Haynes received an overall combined average grade of 2.57 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 1.53, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.60, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Haynes Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 2.57 1.53 3.60 Sample Size - 30 121 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Haynes’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Haynes Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 2010 2012 2.57 1.53 30 3.60 121 Overall 2.57 1.53 30 3.60 121 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Haynes’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Haynes Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Haynes Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.84 59 49% 3.36 62 51% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee VV.. HHaayynneess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3300)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Sample Size = 30 A B C D Fail DK/NA Haynes Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 17% 17% 10% 10% 17% 30% 2.10 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 13% 10% 20% 23% 27% 7% 1.57 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 23% 17% 20% 13% 13% 13% 2.27 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 17% 10% 27% 7% 33% 7% 1.68 3.37 Overall Case Management 1.91 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 10% 10% 27% 20% 30% 3% 1.48 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 10% 13% 20% 17% 37% 3% 1.41 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 7% 7% 13% 13% 43% 17% 1.04 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 7% 21% 17% 17% 24% 14% 1.64 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 1.39 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 20% 10% 20% 10% 27% 13% 1.85 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 17% 13% 17% 13% 23% 17% 1.84 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 1.85 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 10% 17% 17% 20% 37% 0% 1.43 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 7% 13% 7% 17% 57% 0% 0.97 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 7% 13% 13% 20% 47% 0% 1.13 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 13% 10% 7% 23% 40% 7% 1.29 3.23 Overall Demeanor 1.21 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 10% 10% 13% 23% 43% 0% 1.20 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 17% 10% 13% 17% 37% 7% 1.50 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 17% 10% 13% 20% 30% 10% 1.59 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 1.43 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 1.53 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Haynes Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 38% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 31% 25% Completely neutral 17% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 3% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 10% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 10% 56% Recommend retain 7% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 10% 9% Recommend not retain 17% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 57% 7% Total Retain 17% 79% Neither 10% 9% Total Not Retain 74% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 10% 56% Recommend retain 7% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 10% 9% Recommend not retain 17% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 57% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 17% 78% Neither 10% 9% Total Not Retain 74% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 1.53 Overall Average Grade 3.31 1.91 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.10 case after trial. 3.50 1.57 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 2.27 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 1.68 3.37 1.39 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 1.48 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 1.41 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 1.04 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 1.64 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 1.85 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 1.85 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 1.84 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 1.21 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 1.43 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 0.97 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 1.13 neutral manner. 3.24 1.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 1.43 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 1.20 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 1.50 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 1.59 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 38% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 31% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 17% Completely Neutral 51% 3% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 10% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Haynes be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 10% Strongly recommend retain 56% 7% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 10% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Haynes Judges* Total Retain 17% 79% 17% Recommend not retain Neither 10% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 74% 13% 57% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 10% Strongly recommend retain 56% 7% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 10% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Haynes Judges* 17% Recommend not retain Total Retain 17% 78% 5% Neither 10% 9% T5o7ta%l Not Retain 74% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee VV.. HHaayynneess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112211)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Sample Size = 121 A B C D Fail DK/NA Haynes Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 18% 9% 2% 1% 0% 3.55 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 72% 19% 3% 3% 2% 0% 3.55 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 21% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3.59 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 22% 2% 5% 3% 0% 3.46 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.54 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 16% 5% 2% 1% 2% 3.65 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 18% 6% 3% 1% 1% 3.59 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 58% 10% 4% 2% 0% 26% 3.69 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 5% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.64 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 14% 5% 2% 1% 0% 3.68 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 78% 19% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3.73 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 18% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.76 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.72 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 51% 34% 11% 3% 1% 1% 3.33 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 18% 3% 3% 1% 0% 3.66 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 12% 5% 3% 2% 10% 3.60 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 74% 17% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3.68 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 25% 4% 3% 3% 1% 3.45 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 18% 6% 3% 2% 6% 3.51 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 14% 4% 3% 0% 12% 3.66 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 18% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3.62 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.60 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Haynes Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 4% 13% Competely neutral 89% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.03 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 12% Competely neutral 81% 76% Lenient sentencing total 11% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.12 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 77% 67% Recommend retain 15% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 3% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 92% 85% Neither 3% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% 64% Recommend retain 15% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 3% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 3% 5% Total Retain 89% 81% Neither 3% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% Don't Know 3% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.60 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.54 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.55 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.55 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.59 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.46 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.64 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.65 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.59 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.62 or her case. 3.58 3.72 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.68 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.73 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.76 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.54 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.33 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.66 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.60 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.68 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.45 little wasted time. 3.49 3.60 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.66 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.62 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.03 Valerie V. Haynes 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.12 Valerie V. Haynes 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Haynes be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain 67% 15% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 3% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Haynes Judges* 3% Recommend not retain Total Retain 92% 85% 3% Neither 3% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 64% 15% Recommend retain 17% 3% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 3% Judge Haynes Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 89% 81% Neither 3% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 9% 6% Total DK 3% 5% Don't know enough to make a 3% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Haynes is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Valerie V. Haynes 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 7 2 0 0 5 71.4% Defense Attorneys 35 11 0 0 24 68.6% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 4 2 1 0 1 33.3% Total Attorneys 46 15 1 0 30 66.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 139 57 26 10 46 40.7% Defendant 250 154 79 1 16 9.4% Jurors 150 75 12 4 59 42.8% Total Non-attorneys 539 286 117 15 121 28.7% Grand Total: 585 301 118 15 151 32.3% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVaalleerriiee VV.. HHaayynneess 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Valerie V. Haynes Pueblo County Judicial Bldg. 320 West 10th St. Pueblo, CO 81003 Dear Judge Haynes: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Valerie V. Haynes received an overall combined average grade of 2.59 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 1.51, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.66, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Haynes Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 2.59 1.51 3.66 Sample Size - 64 259 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Haynes’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Haynes Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 2.57 1.53 30 3.60 121 2013 2.60 1.48 34 3.72 138 Overall 2.59 1.51 64 3.66 259 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Haynes’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Haynes Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.88 165 64% 3.26 94 36% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee VV.. HHaayynneess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Sample Size = 64 A B C D Fail DK/NA Haynes Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 15% 18% 11% 13% 15% 28% 2.07 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 8% 18% 21% 23% 26% 3% 1.58 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 16% 28% 18% 16% 11% 10% 2.24 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 15% 20% 23% 10% 30% 3% 1.80 3.37 Overall Case Management 1.92 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 5% 15% 30% 20% 30% 2% 1.45 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 5% 15% 25% 18% 36% 2% 1.33 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 7% 7% 15% 16% 43% 13% 1.06 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 9% 17% 22% 12% 33% 7% 1.54 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 1.35 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 20% 15% 23% 11% 25% 7% 1.93 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 15% 11% 21% 13% 23% 16% 1.78 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 1.86 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 10% 11% 23% 16% 39% 0% 1.36 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 7% 13% 13% 15% 52% 0% 1.07 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 5% 11% 23% 15% 46% 0% 1.15 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 8% 8% 20% 18% 38% 8% 1.25 3.21 Overall Demeanor 1.21 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 5% 11% 25% 21% 38% 0% 1.25 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 10% 10% 20% 16% 36% 8% 1.36 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 11% 8% 16% 23% 33% 8% 1.38 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 1.33 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 1.51 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Haynes Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 36% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 36% 25% Completely neutral 16% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 2% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 2% Don't know or not sure 9% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 8% 55% Recommend retain 3% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 15% 9% Recommend not retain 20% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 54% 7% Total Retain 11% 78% Neither 15% 9% Total Not Retain 74% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 1.51 Overall Average Grade 3.30 1.92 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.07 case after trial. 3.50 1.58 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 2.24 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 1.80 3.37 1.35 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 1.45 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 1.33 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 1.06 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 1.54 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 1.86 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 1.93 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 1.78 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 1.21 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 1.36 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 1.07 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 1.15 neutral manner. 3.20 1.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 1.33 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 1.25 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 1.36 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 1.38 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 36% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 36% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 16% Completely Neutral 51% 2% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 2% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 9% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 666 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Haynes be retained or not retained in office? 8% Strongly recommend retain 55% 3% Recommend retain 23% 15% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Haynes Judges* Total Retain 11% 78% 20% Neither 15% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 74% 13% 54% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 777 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee VV.. HHaayynneess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 225599)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Sample Size = 259 A B C D Fail DK/NA Haynes Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 17% 6% 2% 1% 0% 3.64 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 3% 3% 2% 0% 3.59 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 77% 15% 4% 2% 2% 0% 3.64 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 72% 18% 3% 4% 2% 1% 3.54 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.60 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.68 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 76% 15% 4% 3% 1% 1% 3.62 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 58% 9% 3% 2% 0% 27% 3.68 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 12% 4% 2% 1% 5% 3.69 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.67 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 12% 3% 2% 1% 1% 3.74 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 14% 3% 0% 1% 0% 3.77 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.79 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.77 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 65% 26% 6% 2% 1% 1% 3.54 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 15% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.72 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 70% 13% 5% 1% 1% 10% 3.66 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 77% 15% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3.74 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 22% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3.57 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.65 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 16% 3% 3% 2% 6% 3.60 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 12% 3% 2% 1% 12% 3.70 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 15% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.65 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.66 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11966 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Valerie V. Haynes Valerie V. All County Haynes Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 5% 11% Competely neutral 90% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.09 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% 10% Competely neutral 83% 76% Lenient sentencing total 8% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.05 -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 75% 68% Recommend retain 16% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 5% Total Retain 91% 86% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111770 ## Page 14 Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.66 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.60 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.64 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.59 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.64 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.67 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.68 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.62 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.68 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.69 or her case. 3.60 3.77 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.74 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.79 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes 111881 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.65 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.54 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.72 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.66 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.74 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.57 little wasted time. 3.51 3.65 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.60 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.70 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.65 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.09 Valerie V. Haynes 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.05 Valerie V. Haynes -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111992 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Valerie V. Haynes Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Haynes be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 68% 16% Recommend retain 18% 5% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Haynes Judges* 2% Total Retain 91% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 8% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie V. Haynes All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 221003 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 331445 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 331556 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 331667 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 331778 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Haynes is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 331889 ## Page 23 Judge Valerie V. Haynes 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 16 3 2 0 11 78.6% Defense Attorneys 86 31 3 0 52 62.7% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 4 2 1 0 1 33.3% Total Attorneys 106 36 6 0 64 64.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 185 81 36 16 52 34.9% Law Enforcement 36 18 8 0 10 35.7% Defendant 405 238 137 4 26 9.7% Civil Litigant 10 4 2 0 4 50.0% Jurors 370 176 21 8 165 47.3% Employees, including Interpreters 9 5 2 0 2 28.6% Total Non-attorneys 1015 522 206 28 259 32.0% Grand Total: 1121 558 212 28 323 35.5% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 332990 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page

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

Sources

• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026