Kurt A. Horton

Evaluation history

• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 68.9% yes

  238,812 yes · 107,985 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Kurt A. Horton BE RETAINED. Judge Horton received his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame, graduating cum laude in 1976. He received his law degree from the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law in 1980. Following graduation from law school Judge Horton clerked for a United States District Judge in Denver. After that, and before being appointed a District Judge, Judge Horton practiced law in Denver for several years. He specialized in commercial litigation and the defense of professional negligence cases. Judge Horton volunteers each year to judge high school mock trial and moot court competitions. Judge Horton was appointed a District Judge in 2009. Judge Horton's current duties include presiding over both civil and criminal cases, with about eighty percent of his cases being criminal. Judge Horton is described by those who appear before him as fair, impartial, thoughtful and very hardworking. Judge Horton is quick to help out other judges by picking up their overflow cases as necessary. He is also praised for being respectful and considerate of all who appear in his court. Judge Horton has been criticized, and his survey scores reflect this criticism, for being slow to issue decisions and for his rather lengthy written decisions. This is not particularly unusual for newer district judges, however, and Judge Horton is working diligently to find ways to work faster. Judge Horton has already taken survey comments and criticisms to heart and has consulted with his colleagues on ways to expedite cases in his courtroom. While Judge Horton's survey scores are lower overall than those of other district judges standing for retention, the Commission members are very impressed with the judge's excellent court room demeanor, his work ethic, his commitment to serving the public, and his sincere desire and ability to continue to improve as a judge. The Commission is confident that Judge Horton will mature into one of the District's best judges. The Commission has conducted extensive research in making this recommendation, including a review of the surveys conducted on the judge, interviews with people involved in the judge's courtroom, commission members' personal observations in the judge's courtroom, and the judge's self-evaluation. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 59% recommended to retain, 33% not to retain, and 8% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 64% recommended to retain and 35% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 93% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 4% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those non-attorneys expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 97% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2012 cycle
  • 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Kurt A. Horton Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Judge Horton: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Kurt A. Horton May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, district judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 2.80, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.80, Judge Kurt A. Horton’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.30. Judge Horton Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.30 2.80 3.80 Sample Size - 36 158 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Horton from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Horton’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Horton Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 2007 2008 2009 3.54 3.32 16 3.75 107 2010 3.17 2.43 20 3.90 51 Overall 3.30 2.80 36 3.80 158 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 66%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for district judges was 1 There were no surveys conducted based on cases that closed in 2006. See methodology section for more details. 1 ## Page 5 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Horton’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2005 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges. Judge Horton Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All District Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2005 % % 3.84 3.25 2007 % % 3.86 3.31 2008 % % 3.87 3.30 2009 3.81 83 78% 3.48 24 22% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.91 50 98% 3.44 1 2% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.85 133 84% 3.47 25 16% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Horton’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3366)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Sample Size = 36 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 19% 11% 28% 11% 8% 22% 2.29 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 36% 19% 22% 14% 8% 0% 2.61 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 17% 17% 28% 14% 17% 8% 2.03 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 31% 33% 19% 8% 3% 6% 2.85 3.26 Overall Case Management 2.45 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 42% 22% 14% 17% 6% 0% 2.78 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 50% 17% 8% 17% 8% 0% 2.83 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 31% 17% 6% 19% 11% 17% 2.43 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 28% 28% 13% 13% 3% 16% 2.78 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.71 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 42% 36% 8% 8% 3% 3% 3.09 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 47% 22% 6% 8% 3% 14% 3.19 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.14 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 17% 0% 3% 11% 0% 3.31 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 56% 25% 3% 3% 14% 0% 3.06 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 53% 14% 11% 11% 11% 0% 2.86 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 39% 31% 14% 11% 3% 3% 2.94 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.04 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 39% 22% 11% 17% 8% 3% 2.69 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 44% 31% 14% 3% 8% 0% 3.00 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 44% 31% 3% 11% 8% 3% 2.94 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.88 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 2.80 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Judges Sample Size = 36 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 19% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 34% 26% Completely neutral 38% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 41% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 25% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 16% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 19% 6% Total Retain 66% 88% Total Not Retain 35% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 37% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 23% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 14% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 17% 6% Total Retain 60% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 4% Total Not Retain 31% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.80 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.45 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.29 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.61 proceedings. 3.41 2.03 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.85 3.26 2.71 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.78 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.83 3.14 2.43 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.78 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.14 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.09 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.19 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Kurt A. Horton All District Judges Judge Kurt A. Horton 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.04 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.31 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.06 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.86 in a neutral manner. 3.29 2.94 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 2.88 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.69 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.00 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.94 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 19% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 34% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 38% Completely Neutral 47% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Kurt A. Horton All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Horton be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 41% Strongly recommend retain 72% 25% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Judge Horton Judges 16% Total Retain 66% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 35% 12% 6% 19% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 37% Strongly recommend retain 69% 23% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist 9% Judge Horton Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 60% 84% Undecided or DK 9% 4% 14% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 31% 12% 6% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kurt A. Horton All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 115588)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Sample Size = 158 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 87% 11% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.87 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 91% 6% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.90 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 89% 9% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.88 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 82% 12% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3.81 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.87 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 87% 11% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.87 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 85% 11% 1% 0% 0% 2% 3.86 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 55% 6% 1% 0% 0% 37% 3.86 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 86% 11% 1% 0% 0% 2% 3.86 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.86 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 85% 13% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.85 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 84% 15% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.83 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 86% 12% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.85 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.84 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 61% 27% 8% 3% 0% 1% 3.49 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 10% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.84 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 70% 16% 4% 2% 1% 8% 3.65 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 85% 8% 4% 0% 1% 3% 3.81 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 23% 8% 1% 2% 3% 3.50 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 75% 13% 3% 0% 1% 9% 3.77 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 69% 8% 2% 0% 1% 20% 3.82 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 76% 12% 1% 0% 1% 10% 3.81 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.80 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.80 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Judges Sample Size = 158 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 1% 8% Competely neutral 94% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.08 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 3% 8% Competely neutral 89% 82% Lenient sentencing total 7% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.05 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 93% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 4% Total Retain 99% 95% Total Not Retain 1% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 89% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 4% Total Retain 95% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 5% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.80 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.87 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.87 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.90 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.88 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.81 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.86 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.87 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.86 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.86 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.86 or her case. 3.69 3.84 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.85 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.83 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.85 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Kurt A. Horton All District Judges Judge Kurt A. Horton 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.49 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.65 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.81 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.50 little wasted time. 3.58 3.80 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.77 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.82 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.81 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.08 Kurt A. Horton 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.05 Kurt A. Horton 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Kurt A. Horton All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Kurt A. Horton All District Judges Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Horton be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 93% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Horton Judges Total Retain 99% 95% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 1% 6% 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 3% All Dist Undecided 5% Judge Horton Judges Total Retain 95% 90% 0% Undecided 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kurt A. Horton All District Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 21 ## Page 25 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Horton is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Kurt A. Horton 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 27 16 0 0 11 40.7% Defense Attorneys 85 64 0 0 21 24.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4 3 0 0 1 25.0% Other Attorneys Civil 20 17 0 0 3 15.0% Total Attorneys 137 101 0 0 36 26.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 170 100 49 10 11 9.1% Law Enforcement 146 94 38 7 7 6.5% Defendant 97 49 44 0 4 7.5% Civil Litigant 6 2 3 0 1 33.3% Jurors 262 109 13 5 133 53.4% Employees 4 1 0 1 2 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 685 355 147 23 158 29.4% Grand Total: 822 456 147 23 194 28.7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 5963 3735 108 3 2117 36.2% Defense Attorneys 9005 5407 125 0 3473 39.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 310 260 2 1 47 15.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9795 4329 410 17 5039 53.7% Other Attorneys Civil 6107 3564 63 4 2476 41.0% GAL 101 43 5 0 53 55.2% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 193 60 22 0 111 64.9% Total Attorneys 31474 17398 735 25 13316 43.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 149 85 40 3 21 19.3% Witness 13212 6730 4190 587 1705 18.9% Other 5595 3441 1430 55 667 16.0% Law Enforcement 13854 7651 3233 295 2674 25.2% Defendant 40047 19046 17527 241 3226 14.3% Civil Litigant 23266 13519 5107 291 4337 23.9% Witness 618 306 139 15 158 33.0% Other 679 317 150 18 194 36.7% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2763 1447 1003 4 309 17.6% Jurors 48708 18523 2771 544 26770 58.3% Employees 905 283 121 66 435 55.5% Total Non-attorneys 149796 71348 35711 2119 40496 35.5% Grand Total: 181270 88746 36446 2144 53812 37.2% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 13316 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.40 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 24% 11% 6% 4% 8% 3.14 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 20% 10% 6% 4% 21% 3.02 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 23% 9% 4% 3% 26% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 24% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 12% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 7% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 20% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.33 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 19% 7% 3% 2% 14% 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 13316 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 40496 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.65 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.66 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.67 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.64 4d.Being prepared for cases. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.71 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 1% 3% 18% 3.64 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 40496 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.04 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Kurt A. Horton Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Judge Horton: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non- attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Kurt A. Horton March 26, 2012 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Kurt A. Horton received an overall combined average grade of 3.30 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.85, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.74, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Horton Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.30 2.85 3.74 Sample Size - 74 263 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Horton’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Horton Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 3.54 3.32 16 3.75 107 2010 3.17 2.43 20 3.90 51 2011 3.27 2.90 38 3.64 105 Overall 3.30 2.85 74 3.74 263 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.88, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Horton’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Horton Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Horton Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.86 204 78% 3.31 59 22% 3.88 3.28 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7744)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Sample Size = 74 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 18% 8% 22% 11% 9% 32% 2.20 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 36% 23% 19% 11% 9% 1% 2.67 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 19% 19% 28% 11% 16% 7% 2.14 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 30% 35% 22% 7% 3% 4% 2.86 3.22 Overall Case Management 2.47 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 41% 30% 9% 15% 5% 0% 2.85 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 26% 9% 14% 4% 1% 2.97 3.19 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 34% 23% 5% 16% 7% 15% 2.71 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 27% 28% 18% 10% 1% 15% 2.81 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.84 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 42% 36% 8% 7% 3% 4% 3.13 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 43% 26% 7% 5% 3% 16% 3.21 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.17 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 62% 22% 7% 3% 7% 0% 3.30 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 53% 24% 7% 4% 12% 0% 3.01 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 49% 20% 14% 11% 5% 1% 2.97 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 38% 38% 12% 8% 1% 3% 3.06 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.09 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 32% 34% 11% 15% 5% 3% 2.75 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 42% 35% 11% 4% 7% 1% 3.03 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 39% 28% 3% 16% 7% 7% 2.83 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.87 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 2.85 3.29 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Sample Size = 74 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 13% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 24% Completely neutral 42% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 3% Don't know or not sure 6% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 37% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 27% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 16% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 19% 6% Total Retain 64% 87% Total Not Retain 35% 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 34% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 25% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 15% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 18% 6% Total Retain 59% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 5% Total Not Retain 33% 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.85 Overall Average Grade 3.29 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.47 3.29 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.20 case after trial. 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 2.67 proceedings. 3.40 2.14 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.86 3.22 2.84 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 2.85 relevant facts. 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.97 3.19 2.71 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 2.81 when circumstances are similar. 3.15 3.17 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.13 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.21 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.33 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Judges Judge Kurt A. Horton 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.09 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.30 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.50 3.01 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.97 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.06 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 2.87 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.75 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.03 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.83 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 13% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 42% Completely Neutral 49% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 6% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Horton be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 37% Strongly recommend retain 71% 27% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Retention Judge Horton Judges 16% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 64% 87% 6% Total Not Retain 35% 12% 19% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 34% Strongly recommend retain 67% 25% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Including Und/DK Respondents 8% Undecided or DK All Dist 5% Retention Judge Horton Judges 15% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 59% 83% 6% Undecided or DK 8% 5% Total Not Retain 33% 12% 18% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2233)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Kurt A. Horton Sample Size = 23 All District No Kurt A. Horton Retention Evaluations of Judge Horton = 12 A B C D Fail Grade Judges Judge Horton in terms of overall performance as a judge. 30% 22% 0% 0% 0% 48% 3.58 3.68 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. While 23 out of 28 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee KKuurrtt AA.. HHoorrttoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 226633)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Sample Size = 263 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 84% 12% 3% 0% 0% 1% 3.82 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 89% 6% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.84 3.69 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 86% 10% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.82 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3.73 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.80 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 85% 11% 2% 0% 2% 1% 3.79 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 82% 12% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3.77 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 55% 7% 2% 0% 1% 35% 3.78 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 84% 10% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.81 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.79 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 84% 11% 2% 0% 1% 2% 3.81 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 15% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.80 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 12% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.80 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.80 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 57% 30% 8% 2% 0% 2% 3.45 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.75 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 68% 18% 4% 1% 1% 8% 3.63 3.62 4d. Being prepared for cases. 82% 9% 4% 0% 1% 3% 3.77 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 61% 23% 9% 2% 2% 3% 3.44 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 16% 3% 0% 2% 8% 3.69 3.59 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 70% 8% 3% 1% 1% 18% 3.74 3.62 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 12% 2% 0% 2% 10% 3.74 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.72 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.74 3.64 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Kurt A. Horton Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Sample Size = 263 Judges 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 1% 9% Competely neutral 92% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.04 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 4% 10% Competely neutral 88% 80% Lenient sentencing total 8% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.01 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 91% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 97% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 88% 83% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 93% 89% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 5% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.74 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.80 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.65 3.82 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.84 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.82 manner. 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.73 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.59 3.79 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.79 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.77 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.78 themselves. 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.81 or her case. 3.67 3.80 Q3. Overall Communications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.81 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.80 can hear what's being said. 3.72 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Judges Judge Kurt A. Horton 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.61 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.62 3.45 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.75 proceedings. 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.63 3.62 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.77 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.44 little wasted time. 3.56 3.72 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.69 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.59 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.74 possible outside pressure. 3.62 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.74 relevant facts. 3.60 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.04 Kurt A. Horton 0.05 All District Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.01 Kurt A. Horton 0.04 All District Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Judges 15 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 Judge Kurt A. Horton Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Horton be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 6% All Dist Retention 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Horton Judges 2% Total Retain 97% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 88% Strongly recommend retain in office 83% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 4% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 5% All Dist Retention 1% Judge Horton Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 93% 89% 2% Undecided 4% 5% 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Kurt A. Horton All District Retention Judges 16 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention).  The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an 18 ## Page 22 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The 19 ## Page 23 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-eight appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. 20 ## Page 24 The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, though not all 23 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges  RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. As stated above, court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two 21 ## Page 25 to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. 22 ## Page 26 The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Horton is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all district judges. 23 ## Page 27 Judge Kurt A. Horton 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 54 23 7 0 24 51.1% Defense Attorneys 141 87 11 0 43 33.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4 3 0 0 1 25.0% Other Attorneys Civil 30 19 5 0 6 24.0% Total Attorneys 230 133 23 0 74 35.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 170 100 49 10 11 9.1% Law Enforcement 146 94 38 7 7 6.5% Defendant 324 146 155 1 22 13.0% Civil Litigant 7 2 3 0 2 50.0% Jurors 399 166 21 8 204 54.0% Employees, including Interpreters 25 4 5 1 15 75.0% Probation Officers 17 10 5 0 2 16.7% Total Non-attorneys 1088 522 276 27 263 32.4% Grand Total: 1318 655 299 27 337 33.1% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2526 1265 381 0 880 41.0% Defense Attorneys 3297 1732 263 0 1302 42.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 22 13 0 0 9 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2327 1053 103 1 1170 52.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2328 1099 246 0 983 47.2% GAL 11 1 0 0 10 90.9% Total Attorneys 10511 5163 993 1 4354 45.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 52 36 10 0 6 14.3% Witness 7389 3621 2563 353 852 17.7% Other 1084 619 301 15 149 19.0% Law Enforcement 3846 2060 925 142 719 24.6% Defendant 14840 6599 7050 107 1084 13.9% Civil Litigant 6881 3945 1545 101 1290 24.2% Witness 123 58 25 1 39 39.8% Other 126 51 30 10 35 36.5% Jurors 13266 4866 907 173 7320 59.2% Employees, including Interpreters 704 135 95 13 461 75.7% Probation Officers 572 160 116 2 294 64.5% Total Non-attorneys 48883 22150 13567 917 12249 34.7% Grand Total: 59394 27313 14560 918 16603 37.0% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4354 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 48% 20% 8% 4% 2% 18% 3.32 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 25% 11% 5% 3% 10% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 28% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 26% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.32 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 12% 6% 3% 3% 3.19 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 20% 11% 7% 5% 22% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 27% 11% 5% 3% 13% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 24% 9% 3% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 20% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 9% 6% 4% 2% 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 3% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 4% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 19% 6% 4% 2% 13% 3.41 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4354 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 12249 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 8% 2% 1% 2% 34% 3.63 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 12% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 68% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.53 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 15% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.62 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.69 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.59 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.62 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 12% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 33 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 12249 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.04 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 83% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 89% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 34 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Retention Judges DK/ Sample Size = 23 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. 38% 15% 1% 0% 0% 46% Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 35 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 36 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 37 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 38 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 39 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 40 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 8th Judicial District No Grade Christopher J. Munch .... A B C D F Devin R. Odell ............... A B C D F Christie B. Phillips ......... A B C D F John David Williams...... A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 9th Judicial District Ann Frick ....................... A B C D F James B. Boyd .............. A B C D F Shelley I. Gilman ........... A B C D F Daniel B. Petre .............. A B C D F Christina M. Habas ........ A B C D F 10th Judicial District Morris B. Hoffman ......... A B C D F David W. Crockenberg .. A B C D F Kenneth M. Laff ............. A B C D F Deborah R. Eyler .......... A B C D F Catherine A. Lemon ...... A B C D F 11th Judicial District R. Michael Mullins ......... A B C D F Charles M. Barton ......... A B C D F Karen Ashby .................. A B C D F Julie G. Marshall ........... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Claude W. Appel ........... A B C D F Pattie P. Swift ................ A B C D F 4th Judicial District 13th Judicial District Theresa M. Cisneros ..... A B C D F Michael K. Singer .......... A B C D F Robert L. Lowrey ........... A B C D F Charles M. Hobbs ......... A B C D F Timothy J. Schutz .......... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Larry E. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Michael A. O’Hara, III .... A B C D F Scott Sells ..................... A B C D F 15th Judicial District David L. Shakes ............ A B C D F P. Douglas Tallman....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 41 16th Judicial District No Grade M. Jon Kolomitz ............. A B C D F 17th Judicial District Chris Melonakis ............. A B C D F Edward C. Moss ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Marilyn Antrim ............... A B C D F Christopher C. Cross ..... A B C D F J. Mark Hannen ............. A B C D F Kurt A. Horton................ A B C D F Michael Spear ............... A B C D F 19th Judicial District James F. Hartmann, Jr. . A B C D F Elizabeth Strobel ........... A B C D F Todd L. Taylor ............... A B C D F Dinsmore Tuttle ............. A B C D F 20th Judicial District Dolores D. Mallard ........ A B C D F Thomas F. Mulvahill ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District Todd J. Plewe................ A B C D F Please use the following pages or attach a sheet for comments you would like to make about any of these district judges. 2 ## Page 42 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 43 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4

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

• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026