← All judges

William Hood

Supreme Court

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2016 retention cycle
    Supreme Court
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 71.0% yes
    1,534,597 yes · 627,321 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report 2015 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 9 to 0, with one recusal, that Justice William Hood BE RETAINED. Justice Hood was sworn in as a member of the Colorado Supreme Court on January 13, 2014.  Prior to his appointment, he was a judge on the Denver District Court for seven years.  In 1985, Justice Hood graduated from Syracuse University magna cum laude with honors.  He graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1990.  Before becoming a judge, Justice Hood was a litigation partner at Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C. in Denver and served as a prosecutor for ten years in Colorado’s 18th Judicial District.  He has served as a member of the Executive Council of the Colorado Bar Association and the Board of Trustees for the Denver Bar Association.  In 2011, he received the Denver Bar Association’s Judicial Excellence Award.  In 2014, the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers gave him its Distinguished Jurist Award.  Justice Hood has taught courses as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law.  As a Supreme Court Justice, he also has spoken at numerous educational public events. The Commission reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding Justice Hood’s performance, read opinions he authored, observed him in oral arguments, reviewed his self-evaluation, and conducted a personal interview.  The survey asked “how strongly do you recommend that Justice Hood be retained in office, or not be retained in office?”  Of attorneys completing the survey 81% recommended to retain, 9% recommended not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation.  Of judges completing the survey 96% recommended to retain, and 4% made no recommendation. Attorney survey responses indicate that Justice Hood’s performance is strong in the areas of being courteous towards attorneys, treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status, and allowing parties to present their arguments.  Numerous attorneys commented that Justice Hood is intelligent, fair, and prepared for oral argument.  The Commission’s observations confirmed this. The comments of attorneys and judges indicate that he writes clear, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinions.  The Commission reviewed several of Justice Hood’s opinions and also found them to be clear, thoughtful, and well-reasoned.  Overall, the Commission urges Justice Hood to continue his exemplary activities in the community, especially his work on the Access To Justice Commission.  The Judicial Performance Commission believes, without reservation, that Justice Hood is an asset to the Court.

Surveys & reports

  • 2016 cycle
    • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable William W. Hood, III 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report Supreme Court ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable William W. Hood, III Colorado Supreme Court 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Justice Hood, III: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Supreme Court panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 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 third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the attorney questionnaire. 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 justices 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. Attorneys assigned Justice William W. Hood, III an overall average grade of 3.80. Average Attorney Grades by Year Justice Hood Average Sample Score Size Year 2005 NA NA 2006 NA NA 2007 NA NA 2008 NA NA 2009 NA NA 2010 NA NA 2011 NA NA 2012 NA NA 2013 NA NA 2014 3.80 44 All Years 3.80 44 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table above shows Justice Hood's overall average grades from attorneys for up to ten years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional justices will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Justice William W. Hood, III (Sample Size 44) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Justice William W. Hood, III Justice Hood, III Sample Size = 44 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 84% 11% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 86% 5% 2% 2% 0% 5% 3.83 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 89% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 3.98 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 93% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 3.91 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 80% 2% 0% 0% 0% 18% 3.97 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 89% 5% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.81 Question 2 Average Grade 3.89 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 79% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.72 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 76% 10% 10% 0% 0% 3% 3.68 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 69% 10% 0% 0% 0% 21% 3.87 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 83% 14% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.79 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 76% 17% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3.59 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 76% 7% 10% 0% 3% 3% 3.57 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.70 Overall Average Grade: 3.80 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 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Percentage Justice William W. Hood, III Justice Hood, III How strongly do you recommend that Justice Hood, III be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 66% Recommend retain 30% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 2% Recommend not retain 0% Strongly recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 96% Neither 2% Total Not Retain 2% 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 3 ## Page 7 Justice William W. Hood, III Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Average Grades Overall average grade 3.80 Question 2 average grade 3.89 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.84 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.83 answer questions. 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.98 economic status. 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.91 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.97 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.81 Question 3 average grade 3.70 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.72 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.68 basis of the Court's decision. 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.87 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.79 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.59 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.57 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Justice Hood 4 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 8 Justice William W. Hood, III Survey of Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Justice Hood, III be retained or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 66% Recommend retain 30% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 2% Justice Hood, III Total Retain 96% Neither 2% Recommend not retain 0% Total Not Retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 5 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices sample comes from a list of Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the justices who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges and justices 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 and justice by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges and justices 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a Supreme Court justice as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for ten years. After ten years, as new data is added to the justice’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 7 ## Page 11 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices 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 to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices 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 column to the far right shows the justice’s average grade for each question. 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 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 Supreme Court Justices section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice 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. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Supreme Court Justices Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 43.1% for Justice Hood, III. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2014 results, the cooperation rate for Justice Hood, III is 43.1% (not shown below). A table of Justice Hood, III’s cooperation rate is shown below. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2014 through 2014. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Justice Hood, III 204 58 102 44 43.1% 9 ## Page 13 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree ## Page 14 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 15 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice 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 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1
    • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 The Honorable William W. Hood, III 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme 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 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice William W. Hood, III, 158 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 109 agreed they had worked with Justice Hood enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 109 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail 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 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Combined 3.60 Attorneys 3.47 District and Appellate Judges 3.65 Table 1 Justice William W. Hood, III Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.60 3.47 3.65 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 92% Attorneys 81% District & Appellate Judges 96% Table 2 Justice William W. Hood, III Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 92% 81% 96% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Justice William W. Hood, III Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.68 3.65 Writing 3.26 N/A 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 121 5 33 51% 44% District and Appellate 211 0 76 47% 23% Judges *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 Justice William W. Hood, III 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Hood, 59 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 33 agreed they had worked with Justice Hood enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 33 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. 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 “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,482 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%. A total of 161 invitations were sent to 27 staff attorneys working in the appellate courts. Of these, 81 surveys were completed and an additional 11 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 57% 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 88%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015 and closed on February 22nd 2016. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 5 ## Page 8 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 with 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 e-mailed 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: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Justice’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Justice’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice 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. 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. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Justice Hood be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Justice William W. Hood, III Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 9% Figure 3 Justice Hood 100% 80% 59% 60% 40% 22% 20% 9% 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 Justice Hood 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Justice Hood 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 Justice Hood Appellate General Overall Average 3.68 Being prepared for oral argument 3.62 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.94 Being courteous toward attorneys 3.83 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.88 economic status Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.79 questions Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.45 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hood 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Justice William W. Hood, III Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Number of Responses: 33 Average Being fair and impartial toward 67% 9% 15% -- 3% 6% 3.45 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 70% 12% 3% -- -- 15% 3.79 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 70% 9% -- -- -- 21% 3.88 economic status Being courteous toward 76% 15% -- -- -- 9% 3.83 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 45% 3% -- -- -- 52% 3.94 communications Being prepared for oral 64% 15% 9% -- -- 12% 3.62 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Justice Hood 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 Justice Hood Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.26 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.04 decided Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.06 facts Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.39 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.52 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.29 Court's decision Writing opinions that are clear 3.35 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hood 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Justice William W. Hood, III Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Number of Responses: 31 Average Writing opinions that are clear 58% 26% 10% 6% -- -- 3.35 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 55% 29% 6% 10% -- -- 3.29 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 52% 29% 6% -- -- 13% 3.52 Making decisions without regard to 60% 13% 17% 3% -- 7% 3.39 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 52% 26% 6% 10% 6% -- 3.06 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 45% 13% 3% 10% 6% 23% 3.04 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.26 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Hood, 99 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 76 agreed they had worked with Justice Hood enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 76 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 11 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,983 survey invitations were sent and 613 responded and 611 completed the survey. The overall response rate was 31% and the completion rate was 99%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 6th. A reminder email was sent on January 13th to those who had not yet responded. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on November 10th. A reminder email was sent on November 23rd to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 12 ## Page 15 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. 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 Justice William W. Hood, III 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Justice Hood be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Justice William W. Hood, III Total Retain 96% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 6 Justice Hood 100% 80% 74% 60% 40% 23% 20% 4% 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 Justice Hood 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect 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 7 Justice Hood Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.65 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.97 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or… 3.8 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.69 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be… 3.6 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and… 3.63 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.67 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.56 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of… 3.56 Writing opinions that are clear 3.62 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Hood 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Justice William W. Hood, III Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Number of Responses: 76 Average Writing opinions that are clear 67% 27% 6% -- -- -- 3.62 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 67% 23% 8% 2% -- -- 3.56 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 54% 23% 4% 2% -- 17% 3.56 Making decisions without regard to 71% 13% 6% 2% -- 8% 3.67 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 73% 15% 8% 2% -- 2% 3.63 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 63% 21% 8% -- -- 8% 3.6 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 71% 23% 4% -- -- 2% 3.69 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 73% 13% 2% -- -- 12% 3.8 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 66% 2% -- -- -- 32% 3.97 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.65 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice William W. Hood, III 16

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