William L. Herringer

Trial Court · Archuleta · Archuleta

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2016 retention cycle
Trial Court · Archuleta · Archuleta
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 72.3% yes
19,752 yes · 7,554 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Sixth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge William L. Herringer BE RETAINED. Judge Herringer was appointed to the District Court for the Sixth Judicial District in November, 2013. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Colorado College in 1989 and a Juris Doctorate from University of Colorado in 1993. From 1993-1998, Judge Herringer practiced criminal defense law as a Colorado Deputy State Public Defender, representing indigent clients in misdemeanor and felony cases. Beginning 1998, until his appointment as a Judge, Judge Herringer was in private practice handling civil and criminal cases. He has always emphasized trial work in his public and private practice. Judge Herringer is committed to remaining active in the community and has presented at local schools and to the regional Bar Association on multiple occasions. The commission reviewed comments from the public and analyzed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had appeared in his court. The commission members observed him in court, reviewed decisions he authored, reviewed his self-evaluation, met with representatives from the Public Defender’s and District Attorney’s Offices, and conducted a personal interview with Judge Herringer. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Herringer be retailed in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey, 91% recommended Judge Herringer be retained and 9% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 62% recommended Judge Herringer be retained in office, 22% recommended that he not be retained, and 17% made no recommendation regarding retention. (The percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding). Judge Herringer presides over criminal, domestic, juvenile, dependency and neglect, civil, and probate matters in his court. He is the lead Judge for Dependency and Neglect (child welfare) cases and co-chairs the local Best Practices Court Team. Since being appointed as Judge, he has actively sought out training opportunities to enhance his understanding of civil litigation, including attending the Colorado Judicial Institute on domestic relations law and child welfare. The Commission acknowledges the disparity between the attorney and non- attorney evaluations. The commission is impressed by Judge Herringer’s constructive responses to his interim evaluation, particularly with regard to different aspects of judicial temperament and the appearance that he is distracted from the people in the courtroom. The commission also appreciated Judge Herringer’s strong intellect and commitment to justice and agrees with many comments that he is an asset to our judiciary.

Surveys & reports

2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable William L. Herringer 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 6th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable William L. Herringer La Plata County Courthouse 1060 E. 2nd Ave., #106 Durango, CO 81301 Dear Judge Herringer: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge William L. Herringer received an overall combined average grade of 3.30 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.16, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.44, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Herringer Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.30 3.16 3.44 Sample Size -- 38 54 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Herringer’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Herringer Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.30 3.16 38 3.44 54 Overall 3.30 3.16 38 3.44 54 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.26. Judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non- attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Herringer’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Herringer Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.78 29 54% 3.03 25 46% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge William L. Herringer (Sample Size 38) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge William L. Herringer William L. All District Sample Size = 38 A B C D Fail DK/NA Herringer Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 39% 16% 8% 3% 0% 34% 3.40 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 50% 29% 18% 0% 3% 0% 3.24 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 34% 3% 5% 3% 8% 3.29 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 5% 0% 5% 3.42 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.34 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 21% 16% 3% 5% 0% 3.18 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 24% 13% 3% 8% 0% 3.11 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 32% 24% 13% 8% 5% 18% 2.84 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 47% 27% 13% 0% 0% 13% 3.38 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.13 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 54% 24% 11% 3% 3% 5% 3.31 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 22% 19% 5% 0% 5% 3.20 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.26 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 43% 30% 14% 5% 5% 3% 3.03 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 38% 30% 19% 3% 8% 3% 2.89 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 41% 30% 11% 5% 11% 3% 2.86 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 49% 19% 14% 5% 8% 5% 3.00 3.24 Overall Demeanor 2.95 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 41% 27% 16% 14% 3% 0% 2.89 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 59% 14% 16% 0% 8% 3% 3.19 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 59% 19% 11% 3% 0% 8% 3.47 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.18 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.16 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge William L. Herringer William L. All District Herringer Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 8% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 15% 23% Completely neutral 54% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 23% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% 57% Recommend retain 24% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 6% Total Retain 80% 79% Neither 12% 9% Total Not Retain 9% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge William L. Herringer Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.16 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.34 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.40 case after trial. 3.35 3.24 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 3.29 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.42 3.24 3.13 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 3.11 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 2.84 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.38 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.26 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.31 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.20 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 William L. Herringer All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge William L. Herringer 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge William L. Herringer Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 2.95 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.03 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 2.89 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.86 neutral manner. 3.26 3.00 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.18 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.89 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.19 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.47 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 8% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 15% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 54% Completely Neutral 49% 23% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% William L. Herringer All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge William L. Herringer Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Herringer be retained or not retained in office? 56% Strongly recommend retain 57% 24% Recommend retain 22% 12% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Herringer Judges* Total Retain 80% 79% 0% Neither 12% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 9% 12% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% William L. Herringer All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge William L. Herringer (Sample Size 54) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge William L. Herringer William L. All District Sample Size = 54 A B C D Fail DK/NA Herringer Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 13% 6% 2% 4% 4% 3.54 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 0% 2% 6% 2% 3.57 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 67% 20% 0% 2% 7% 4% 3.42 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 23% 0% 2% 6% 6% 3.46 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 9% 2% 2% 6% 2% 3.58 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 12% 4% 2% 6% 4% 3.49 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 39% 8% 0% 2% 4% 47% 3.42 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 66% 10% 2% 2% 6% 14% 3.49 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.50 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 64% 23% 0% 2% 6% 6% 3.46 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 13% 0% 2% 6% 2% 3.57 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 67% 24% 2% 0% 6% 2% 3.48 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.50 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 47% 40% 0% 0% 8% 6% 3.26 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 17% 4% 2% 4% 6% 3.51 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 27% 2% 2% 4% 13% 3.40 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 58% 21% 2% 4% 4% 12% 3.41 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 44% 29% 12% 4% 4% 8% 3.15 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.35 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 21% 8% 2% 4% 2% 3.42 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 63% 10% 4% 6% 4% 13% 3.42 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 13% 6% 0% 8% 8% 3.40 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.41 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.44 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge William L. Herringer William L. All District Herringer Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% 9% Competely neutral 69% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 19% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.28 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 4% 10% Competely neutral 65% 78% Lenient sentencing total 32% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -1.00 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 57% 74% Recommend retain 23% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% 5% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 5% Total Retain 80% 87% Neither 8% 5% Total Not Retain 13% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge William L. Herringer Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.44 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.50 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.54 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.57 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.42 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.46 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.50 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.58 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.49 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.42 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.49 their case. 3.64 3.50 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.46 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.57 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.48 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 William L. Herringer All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge William L. Herringer 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge William L. Herringer Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.35 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.26 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.51 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.40 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.41 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.15 little wasted time. 3.54 3.41 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.42 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.40 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.28 William L. Herringer 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -1.00 William L. Herringer 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. William L. Herringer All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge William L. Herringer Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Herringer be retained or not retained in office? 57% Strongly recommend retain 74% 23% Recommend retain 13% 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 5% Judge Herringer Judges* 4% Total Retain 80% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 8% 5% Total Not Retain 13% 7% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% William L. Herringer All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non- attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Herringer is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding District Judges surveys for all district judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge William L. Herringer 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 13 4 4 0 5 55.6% Defense Attorneys 15 3 3 0 9 75.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 19 4 1 0 14 77.8% Other Attorneys Civil 19 2 7 0 10 83.3% Total Attorneys 66 13 15 0 38 74.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 18 13 1 0 4 23.5% Law Enforcement 25 18 4 0 3 14.3% Defendant 190 76 108 1 5 6.1% Civil Litigant 74 39 22 3 10 19.2% Other 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Jurors 49 16 3 1 29 63.0% Total Non-attorneys 360 163 138 5 54 24.3% Grand Total: 426 176 153 5 92 33.7% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3259 1426 748 0 1085 43.2% Defense Attorneys 3585 1696 482 0 1407 45.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 25 14 2 0 9 39.1% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2791 1004 327 0 1460 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4006 1545 780 0 1681 52.1% GAL 11 0 0 0 11 100.0% Total Attorneys 13677 5685 2339 0 5653 49.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16384 7182 8195 112 895 10.9% Civil Litigant 8222 4671 2146 126 1279 21.1% Witness 196 90 49 3 54 36.7% Other 231 105 45 14 67 36.0% Jurors 10278 4073 804 154 5247 55.4% Employees, including Interpreters 567 108 90 10 359 75.3% Probation Officers 432 118 78 1 235 66.4% Total Non-attorneys 46435 21813 14253 909 9460 29.4% Grand Total: 60112 27498 16592 909 15113 34.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9460 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable William L. Herringer 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge William L. Herringer, 41 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 29 agreed they had worked with Judge Herringer enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 29 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.24 Attorneys 3.31 Total Non-Attorneys 3.20 Juror 3.78 Non-Attorney Other* 3.03 Table 1 Judge William L. Herringer Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.24 3.31 3.20 3.78 3.03 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 72% Attorneys 91% Total Non-Attorneys 62% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 50% Table 2 Judge William L. Herringer Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 72% 91% 62% 100% 50% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge William L. Herringer Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.14 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.30 2.98 3.75 2.76 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.50 3.31 3.83 3.17 Diligence 3.53 3.36 3.80 3.23 Demeanor 3.09 3.12 3.75 2.95 Fairness N/A 3.21 3.75 3.05 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 64 2 11 29% 39% Total Non- 412 148 18 9% 22% Attorneys Staff 6 0 4 83% 20% Jurors 70 0 4 7% 20% Other Non- 336 148 10 7% 23% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Herringer, 18 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 11 agreed they had worked with Judge Herringer enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 11 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 5 ## Page 8 and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 6 ## Page 9 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge William L. Herringer be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge William L. Herringer Total Retain 91% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 73% 67% 60% 40% 18% 20% 13% 9% 9% 6% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Herringer All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Herringer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 3.14 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.36 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.33 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.82 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.12 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 6 Case Management Judge William L. All Herringer Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Herringer Judges Responses: 11 Promptly issuing a decision on the 18% 45% 9% -- -- 27% 3.12 3.41 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 9% 73% 9% 9% -- -- 2.82 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 36% 36% 9% -- -- 18% 3.33 3.32 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 36% 64% -- -- -- -- 3.36 3.29 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.14 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Herringer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.30 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.30 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.20 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 3.60 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.36 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.27 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 11 Herringer Judges Being able to identify and 45% 36% 18% -- -- -- 3.27 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 36% 64% -- -- -- -- 3.36 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 29% -- -- -- 29% 3.60 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 36% 36% 18% -- -- 9% 3.20 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 36% 45% 9% -- -- 9% 3.30 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.30 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Herringer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.50 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 3.36 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 8 Communications Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 11 Herringer Judges Making sure all participants 64% 36% -- -- -- -- 3.64 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 55% 27% 18% -- -- -- 3.36 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.50 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Herringer on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 3.09 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.00 3.33 Treating participants with respect 3.00 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.27 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 9 Demeanor Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 11 Herringer Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 36% 55% 9% -- -- -- 3.27 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 36% 36% 18% 9% -- -- 3.00 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 27% 45% 9% 9% -- 9% 3.00 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.09 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Herringer 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. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.53 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 3.43 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 3.80 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 3.30 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 10 Diligence Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 10 Herringer Judges Using good judgment in application of 27% 64% -- -- -- 9% 3.30 3.16 relevant law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 73% 18% -- -- -- 9% 3.80 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 36% 18% 9% -- -- 36% 3.43 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.53 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Herringer in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 1 0.8 60% 0.6 51% 40% 0.4 23% 0.2 11% 11% 5% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Herringer All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Herringer, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Herringer enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 15 ## Page 18 e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 16 ## Page 19 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B,C,D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Herringer 3.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge William L. All Herringer Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Herringer Judges Responses: 5 Overall performance as a 10% 14% -- -- -- 76% 3.40 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge William L. Herringer, 23 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 18 agreed they had worked with Judge Herringer enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 18 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 19 ## Page 22 At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Herringer be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge William L. Herringer Total Retain 62% Neither 17% Total Not Retain 22% Figure 10 100% 80% 74% 56% 60% 40% 17% 20% 12% 11% 11% 6% 6% 6% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Herringer All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 21 ## Page 24 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.12 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.06 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.83 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.28 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 13 Demeanor Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 18 Herringer Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 56% 33% -- 11% -- -- 3.33 3.66 Treating participants with respect 56% 33% -- 6% 6% -- 3.28 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 44% 22% 11% 17% 6% -- 2.83 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 50% 17% 22% 11% -- -- 3.06 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.12 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 22 ## Page 25 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.21 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.40 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.40 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 2.88 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.39 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 14 Fairness Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 18 Herringer Judges Giving participants an 61% 22% 11% 6% -- -- 3.39 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 56% 6% 6% 22% 6% 6% 2.88 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 39% 11% -- -- 6% 44% 3.40 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 56% 11% 11% 6% -- 17% 3.40 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.21 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 23 ## Page 26 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.31 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.22 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.22 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.53 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 15 Communications Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 18 Herringer Judges Making sure all participants understand the 61% 22% 11% -- -- 6% 3.53 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 50% 28% 17% 6% -- -- 3.22 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 44% 33% 22% -- -- -- 3.22 3.75 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.31 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 24 ## Page 27 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.36 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.28 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.31 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 16 Diligence Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 18 Herringer Judges Beginning court on time 67% 17% -- 17% -- -- 3.33 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 59% 24% -- 6% 6% 6% 3.31 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 67% 22% 6% 6% -- -- 3.50 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 44% 33% 11% -- -- 11% 3.37 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 61% 22% 6% 6% 6% -- 3.28 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.36 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 25 ## Page 28 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.98 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.94 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 2.87 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.06 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Herringer Table 17 Application of Law Judge William L. Herringer All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 18 Herringer Judges Giving reasons for rulings 56% 22% 6% 6% 11% -- 3.06 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 44% 11% 11% 6% 11% 17% 2.87 3.56 outside pressure Being able to identify and 50% 28% -- 11% 11% -- 2.94 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.98 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Herringer is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Herringer is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 82% 80% 60% 47% 40% 24% 24% 20% 6% 4% 5% 4% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Herringer All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 27 ## Page 30 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Herringer are. If you feel Judge Herringer generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 82% 80% 57% 60% 40% 21% 20% 14% 7% 7% 3% 4% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Herringer All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge William L. Herringer 28

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

Sources

2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026