Byron L. Howell

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Adams · Adams

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 54.4% yes

  74,092 yes · 62,100 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Byron Lynn Howell MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Five members of the Commission voted that Judge Howell met judicial performance standards, while the other five members voted that he did not meet judicial performance standards. Judge Howell was appointed to the County Court in 2008. He previously served as a Deputy City and County Attorney in Broomfield prior to his appointment. Before that, he served as Washington County Attorney, an Assistant Morgan County Attorney and the supervisor of the Pre-Trial Services Unit in San Diego Superior Court. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Northern Colorado in 1978, his Juris Doctor from the University of Wyoming in 1994 and his Master of Public Administration from San Diego State University in 2003. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Howell, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Howell.  Those surveyed were asked, "based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Howell meets judicial performance standards?" Of the 47 attorneys responding to the surveys, 66% believe that Judge Howell meets performance standards, 26% believe he does not meet performance standards, and 9% had no opinion. Judge Howell received ratings below the statewide average among all County Court judges standing for retention with regard to all the areas surveyed: (1) case management, (2) application and knowledge of law, (3) communications, (4) demeanor, and (5) diligence. Of the 33 non-attorneys responding to the survey, 75% believe Judge Howell meets performance standards, 16% believe he does not, and 9% had no opinion. Judge Howell received ratings below the statewide average among all County Court judges standing for retention with regard to most areas surveyed: (1) demeanor, (2) fairness, (3) communications, and (4) diligence, and (5) application of the law. After meeting with Judge Howell, and after reviewing his work over the last four years, and after assessing feedback from attorneys and non-attorneys, the Commission was evenly split as to whether he meets judicial performance. Although much of his work is satisfactory, his overall performance was not strong enough to gain a majority of the Commission’s support. While many on the Commission believe Judge Howell effectively applies the law to the facts before him, others believe that he is ineffective with regard to case management, communication and administration. Judge Howell is actively engaged in training and education to improve his caseflow management and administration. Based on all the aforementioned considerations, the Judicial Performance Commission recommends that Judge Howell meets performance standards.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Adams · Adams

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 60.3% yes

  62,512 yes · 41,127 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Byron Lynn Howell BE RETAINED. Judge Howell, an Adams County Court Judge in the Seventeenth Judicial District, was appointed to the County Court bench in 2008 and presides over criminal and traffic cases.  Prior to his appointment, Judge Howell served as a Deputy City and County Attorney in Broomfield since 2001. He previously served as a Washington County Attorney, an Assistant Morgan County Attorney and the supervisor of the Pre-Trial Services Unit in San Diego Superior Court. Judge Howell received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado in 1978, his J.D. from the University of Wyoming in 1994 and his Master’s in Public Administration from San Diego State University in 2003. In arriving at their recommendation, Commission members interviewed Judge Howell after reviewing survey results provided by lawyers, parties, and other individuals who appeared in front of Judge Howell or otherwise observed him in court.  The Commission members also reviewed Judge Howell’s self-evaluation, observed him in court, and reviewed a number of decisions rendered by the judge.  During this election cycle, Judge Howell’s survey results from attorneys and non-attorneys revealed his ratings were only slightly below the statewide average among all county court judges standing for retention.  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 58% recommended to retain, 25% not to retain, and 17% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 87% recommended to retain, 6% not to retain, and 6% made no recommendation regarding retention.  (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding). The Commission believes that Judge Howell keeps up to date on the law and applies it fairly and uniformly.  Survey results indicated that Judge Howell needs improvement in docket management and being more decisive in the decision making process.  When these issues were brought to Judge Howell’s attention, he agreed that in the past he has had concerns with both issues.  However, Judge Howell also indicated that he has begun putting systems in place to more efficiently run his courtroom.  With regard to decision making, Judge Howell acknowledged that others have raised concerns regarding the way he addresses legal arguments and decision making, and will strive to provide more efficient and decisive decision making.  Judge Howell was able to openly address all issues raised, and indicated that he strives to continue to improve and serve as a County Court Judge. Based on its review of returned surveys, review of several of Judge Howell’s decisions, courtroom observations, and interview of Judge Howell,  the Commission unanimously recommends that Judge Byron Lynn Howell BE RETAINED.
• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Adams · Adams

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 59.5% yes

  53,768 yes · 36,570 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Byron L. Howell BE RETAINED. Prior to his appointment as a County Court Judge in July of 2008, Judge Howell served as a Deputy City and County Attorney in Broomfield since 2001. He previously served as a Washington County Attorney, an Assistant Morgan County Attorney and the supervisor of the Pre-Trial Services Unit in San Diego Superior Court. Judge Howell received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado in 1978, his J.D. from the University of Wyoming in 1994 and his Master’s in Public Administration from San Diego State University in 2003. The Commission reviewed responses to questionnaires regarding Judge Howell from attorneys and non-attorneys, which included written comments. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Howell and three transcripts of tape recorded hearings over which Judge Howell presided. Several Commission members observed Judge Howell during courtroom proceedings and the Commission conducted a personal interview with him. Attorneys and non-attorneys cite Judge Howell’s strengths to include: intelligence, methodical research and a compassionate, patient and professional demeanor. Judge Howell is genuinely concerned with justice. His courtroom control and proficiency have improved since the beginning of his term. He has implemented a self-improvement plan which includes seeking advice from colleagues to advance his overall effectiveness. Judge Howell’s willingness to overcome his deficiencies, coupled with more experience and education opportunities, supports his retention. The sample size of attorneys who responded to the questionnaire was 24. Among attorneys surveyed, there is a noteworthy disparity between Judge Howell’s overall average grade (2.71) and that of all county judges (3.31) in the areas of case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor and diligence. The sample size of non-attorneys was 93. Judge Howell’s overall average grade among non-attorneys is consistent with that of all county judges. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 65% recommended to retain, 26% not to retain and 9% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 71% recommended to retain and 29% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed about retention, 81% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain and 14% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 95% recommended to retain and 6% not to retain. These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) It is the Commission’s unanimous recommendation to retain Judge Byron L. Howell.

Surveys & reports

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

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Byron L. Howell 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Byron L. Howell, 137 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 100 agreed they had worked with Judge Howell enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 100 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) 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 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.91 4 3.63 3.47 3.14 3 2.82 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Byron L. Howell Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.14 2.82 3.63 3.91 3.47 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 94% 89% 80% 68% 62% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Byron L. Howell Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 68% 62% 94% 100% 89% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Byron L. Howell Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 2.64 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.69 3.56 3.93 3.36 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.04 3.73 3.98 3.59 Diligence 2.76 3.59 3.66 3.55 Demeanor 2.96 3.62 3.98 3.43 Fairness N/A 3.63 4.00 3.43 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 255 0 70 27% 14% Total Non- 953 77 67 7% 40% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 84 0 16 19% 13% Other Non- 869 77 51 6% 49% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Howell, 70 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 60 agreed they had worked with Judge Howell enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 60 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Byron L. Howell be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Byron L. Howell Total Retain 62% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 32% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 54% 40% 40% 22% 22% 15% 17% 20% 7% 9% 7% 9% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Howell All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 2.64 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.86 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 2.59 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.38 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 2.77 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 6 Case Management Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Howell Number of Responses: 60 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 35% 15% 12% 8% 8% 22% 2.77 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 25% 33% 13% 12% 17% -- 2.38 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 28% 20% 13% 12% 8% 18% 2.59 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 40% 27% 7% 13% 7% 7% 2.86 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 2.64 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.69 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.59 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.69 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.19 are similar 2.72 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.72 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.68 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 60 Howell Judges Being able to identify and analyze 38% 23% 13% 18% 7% -- 2.68 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 38% 25% 15% 13% 8% -- 2.72 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 43% 23% 3% 13% 13% 3% 2.72 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 44% 25% 3% 10% 17% -- 2.69 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 40% 17% 15% 15% 12% 2% 2.59 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.69 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.38 Communications Overall Average 3.04 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 2.90 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.17 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 8 Communications All Judge Byron L. Howell Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Howell Number of Responses: 60 Judges Making sure all participants 55% 20% 15% 7% 3% -- 3.17 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 43% 17% 5% 13% 7% 15% 2.90 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.04 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 2.96 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.82 3.32 Treating participants with respect 3.07 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Byron L. Howell Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Howell Number of Responses: 60 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 48% 25% 12% 8% 7% -- 3.00 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 60% 13% 8% 10% 8% -- 3.07 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 50% 15% 12% 13% 10% -- 2.82 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.96 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 2.76 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 2.96 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 2.86 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 2.53 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 10 Diligence Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 60 Howell Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 35% 22% 13% 17% 12% 2% 2.53 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 43% 22% 13% 12% 7% 3% 2.86 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 52% 17% 8% 3% 13% 7% 2.96 3.26 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.76 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Howell in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 53% 52% 40% 27% 23% 17% 20% 11% 8% 5% 2% 2% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Howell All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Byron L. Howell, 67 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 40 agreed they had worked with Judge Howell enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 40 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Byron L. Howell Total Retain 94% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 6% Figure 10 100% 80% 65% 64% 60% 40% 29% 17% 20% 7% 6% 9% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Howell All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.62 3.35 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.61 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.58 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.68 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.65 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 12 Demeanor Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 40 Howell Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 83% 10% -- 5% 3% -- 3.65 3.47 Treating participants with respect 83% 10% 3% 3% 3% -- 3.68 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 83% 5% 5% 3% 5% -- 3.58 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 82% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3.61 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.62 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.63 3.47 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.68 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.57 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.60 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 13 Fairness Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Howell Number of Responses: 40 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 83% 10% 5% -- 3% -- 3.70 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 83% 10% -- -- 8% -- 3.60 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 56% 10% -- -- 5% 28% 3.57 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 78% 8% 3% 3% 3% 8% 3.68 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.63 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.80 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.79 Making sure all participants understand the 3.54 proceedings 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 14 Communications Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 40 Howell Judges Making sure all participants 83% 8% 5% -- 5% -- 3.63 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 83% 10% 5% -- -- 3% 3.79 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 85% 10% 5% -- -- -- 3.80 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.73 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.45 wasted time 3.62 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.76 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.69 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.50 for cases 3.63 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.38 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 15 Diligence Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 40 Howell Judges Beginning court on time 68% 10% 18% 3% 3% -- 3.38 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 77% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3.63 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 82% 13% -- 3% 3% -- 3.69 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 75% 13% 5% -- -- 8% 3.76 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 72% 21% 5% 3% -- -- 3.62 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.56 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.63 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.41 outside pressure 3.65 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Howell Table 16 Application of Law Judge Byron L. Howell All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Howell Number of Responses: 40 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 75% 8% 5% -- 8% 5% 3.50 3.37 Willing to make decision without 70% 8% 3% 3% 3% 15% 3.65 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 78% 8% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3.63 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.56 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Howell is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Howell is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 90% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 10% 7% 7% 6% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Howell All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Howell are. If you feel Judge Howell generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 89% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 3% 6% 8% 5% 8% 3% 6% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Howell All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 25
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    70%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    75%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Byron L. Howell 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Byron L. Howell, 106 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 80 agreed they had worked with Judge Howell enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 80 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.84 3.35 3.27 3.03 3 2.86 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Byron L. Howell Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.03 2.86 3.35 3.84 3.27 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 91% 78% 80% 75% 70% 66% 60% 40% 26% 22% 20% 16% 17% 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Byron L. Howell Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 70% 66% 75% 91% 78% standards No, does not meet performance 22% 26% 16% 0% 17% standards No opinion 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Byron L. Howell Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 2.73 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.74 3.47 3.93 3.36 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.00 3.29 3.77 3.28 Diligence 2.88 3.25 3.70 3.29 Demeanor 2.97 3.38 3.88 3.22 Fairness N/A 3.38 3.93 3.22 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 160 0 52 33% 10% Total Non- 1331 269 54 5% 39% Attorneys Staff 14 0 5 36% 40% Jurors 118 0 15 13% 27% Other Non- 1199 269 34 4% 44% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Howell, 52 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 47 agreed they had worked with Judge Howell enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 47 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 2.73 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 2.64 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 2.68 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 2.7 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 2.93 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Byron L. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Howell Promptly issuing a decision on the 14 11 6 2 6 8 47 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 16 19 1 3 8 -- 47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 16 10 3 -- 8 10 47 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 23 9 4 5 4 2 47 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 2.74 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 2.83 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 2.78 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 2.88 are similar 3.15 2.74 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 2.65 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 25 8 2 2 9 1 47 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 25 7 2 3 9 1 47 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 23 5 5 4 5 3 45 similar Being fair and impartial to both 26 5 3 4 9 -- 47 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 21 10 2 4 9 1 47 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.04 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 2.94 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 28 6 3 4 5 1 47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 22 3 3 3 5 11 47 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 2.97 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 2.98 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.09 Treating participants with respect 3.30 2.85 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 26 9 3 3 6 -- 47 dignity Treating participants with respect 29 6 4 3 5 -- 47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 28 3 5 3 8 -- 47 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Howell on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 2.88 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.78 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.91 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 2.91 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 24 9 1 3 9 1 47 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 25 7 5 3 6 1 47 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 24 10 2 1 8 2 47 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Howell meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Byron L. Howell Yes, meets performance 66% standards No, does not meet 26% performance standards No opinion 9% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Byron L. Howell, 54 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 33 agreed they had worked with Judge Howell enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 33 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 16 ## Page 19 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.38 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.3 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.4 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.37 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 19 5 4 -- 2 1 31 Treating participants with respect 19 8 1 -- 2 1 31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 21 5 2 -- 2 1 31 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 18 9 1 -- 2 1 31 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 17 ## Page 20 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.38 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.4 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.43 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.25 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.43 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 19 8 1 -- 2 1 31 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 21 5 2 -- 2 1 31 case without bias Treating fairly people who 14 6 2 -- 2 7 31 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 18 8 -- -- 2 3 31 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 18 ## Page 21 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.29 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.43 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.47 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.13 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 18 8 3 1 -- 1 31 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 19 8 2 -- 1 1 31 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 17 6 4 3 1 -- 31 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 19 ## Page 22 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.25 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.33 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.4 for cases 3.64 3.4 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.32 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.1 wasted time 3.55 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 19 6 2 2 1 1 31 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 21 4 3 -- 2 1 31 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 23 2 2 -- 3 1 31 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 19 4 2 1 2 3 31 Managing court proceedings so that there is 20 1 4 2 3 1 31 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 20 ## Page 23 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.47 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.48 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.47 outside pressure 3.55 3.47 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Howell All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Byron L. Howell A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 20 5 3 -- 1 2 31 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 22 4 2 -- 2 1 31 pressure Being able to identify and 21 4 4 -- 1 1 31 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Howell meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Byron L. Howell Yes, meets performance 75% standards No, does not meet 16% performance standards No opinion 9% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Byron L. Howell 22
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweellll 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Byron L. Howell Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Howell: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Byron L. Howell May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Byron L. Howell received an overall combined average grade of 3.19 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. 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, 3.53, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Howell Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.19 2.85 3.53 Sample Size - 120 277 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Howell’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Howell Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 3.14 2.79 25 3.48 109 2010 3.37 3.04 45 3.70 63 2012 3.09 2.70 50 3.48 105 Overall 3.19 2.85 120 3.53 277 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Howell’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Howell Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Howell Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.71 191 69% 3.13 86 31% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweel ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112200)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Sample Size = 120 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 29% 18% 13% 13% 6% 23% 2.67 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 30% 24% 21% 16% 8% 2% 2.54 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 25% 23% 17% 12% 6% 18% 2.61 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 34% 28% 17% 8% 6% 7% 2.82 3.37 Overall Case Management 2.66 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 36% 24% 16% 11% 11% 3% 2.65 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 39% 23% 10% 14% 11% 3% 2.68 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 46% 17% 12% 8% 10% 8% 2.86 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 40% 24% 13% 7% 10% 6% 2.83 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.76 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 48% 30% 12% 3% 5% 3% 3.15 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 33% 13% 7% 5% 6% 36% 2.99 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.07 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 51% 26% 11% 5% 7% 1% 3.10 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 61% 20% 8% 3% 8% 1% 3.25 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 47% 23% 14% 4% 11% 1% 2.92 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 43% 22% 11% 9% 12% 3% 2.78 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.01 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 41% 23% 13% 8% 14% 2% 2.69 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 43% 19% 12% 10% 11% 5% 2.78 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 47% 21% 7% 6% 8% 13% 3.07 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.85 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 2.85 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 20% 25% Completely neutral 48% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 3% Don't know or not sure 3% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 22% 56% Recommend retain 33% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 18% 9% Recommend not retain 12% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 7% Total Retain 55% 79% Neither 18% 9% Total Not Retain 26% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 22% 56% Recommend retain 33% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 18% 9% Recommend not retain 12% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 55% 78% Neither 18% 9% Total Not Retain 26% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.85 Overall Average Grade 3.31 2.66 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.67 case after trial. 3.50 2.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 2.61 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.82 3.37 2.76 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2.65 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 2.68 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 2.86 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 2.83 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.07 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.15 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 2.99 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.01 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.10 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.25 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.92 neutral manner. 3.24 2.78 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 2.85 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.69 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.78 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.07 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 21% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 20% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 48% Completely Neutral 51% 7% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 3% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 22% Strongly recommend retain 56% 33% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 18% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Howell Judges* Total Retain 55% 79% 12% Recommend not retain Neither 18% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 26% 13% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 22% Strongly recommend retain 56% 33% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 18% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Howell Judges* 12% Recommend not retain Total Retain 55% 78% 5% Neither 18% 9% 14% Total Not Retain 26% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweel ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 227)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Sample Size = 277 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 25% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.57 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 19% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.56 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 63% 24% 3% 3% 1% 5% 3.53 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.58 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 71% 19% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3.62 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 20% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.55 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 47% 13% 3% 1% 2% 35% 3.57 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 71% 19% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3.63 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.59 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 70% 20% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.59 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 69% 23% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.59 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 66% 22% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.52 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.57 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 54% 24% 12% 4% 2% 4% 3.30 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 68% 22% 6% 1% 1% 2% 3.56 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 19% 8% 1% 2% 15% 3.45 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 19% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.58 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 55% 22% 12% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.43 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 61% 18% 4% 2% 3% 12% 3.49 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 52% 17% 3% 1% 3% 24% 3.50 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 18% 6% 2% 3% 12% 3.47 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.49 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.53 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% 13% Competely neutral 83% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.12 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% 12% Competely neutral 82% 76% Lenient sentencing total 9% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.04 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 58% 67% Recommend retain 26% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 84% 85% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 8% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 53% 64% Recommend retain 24% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 9% 5% Total Retain 77% 81% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 8% 9% Don't Know 9% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.53 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.58 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.57 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.65 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.56 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.53 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.59 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.62 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.55 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.57 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.63 or her case. 3.58 3.57 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.59 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.59 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.52 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.43 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.30 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.56 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.45 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.58 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.28 little wasted time. 3.49 3.49 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.49 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.50 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.47 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.12 Byron L. Howell 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.04 Byron L. Howell 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 58% Strongly recommend retain 67% 26% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 7% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Howell Judges* 3% Recommend not retain Total Retain 84% 85% 3% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 8% 9% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 53% Strongly recommend retain 64% 24% Recommend retain 17% 6% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 3% Judge Howell Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 77% 81% Neither 6% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 9% 6% Total DK 9% 5% Don't know enough to make a 9% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Howell is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Byron L. Howell 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 195 142 5 0 48 25.3% Defense Attorneys 267 186 9 0 72 27.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 463 329 14 0 120 26.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 165 92 41 11 21 16.9% Law Enforcement 222 157 28 14 23 11.9% Defendant 520 308 164 8 40 11.2% Jurors 577 327 37 22 191 35.4% Employees, including Interpreters 3 0 0 1 2 66.7% Total Non-attorneys 1487 884 270 56 277 22.8% Grand Total: 1950 1213 284 56 397 23.8% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweellll 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Byron L. Howell Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Howell: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Byron L. Howell received an overall combined average grade of 3.26 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.94, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.57, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Howell Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.26 2.94 3.57 Sample Size - 138 258 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Howell’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Howell Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 3.37 3.04 45 3.70 63 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.09 2.70 50 3.48 105 2013 3.37 3.14 43 3.59 90 Overall 3.26 2.94 138 3.57 258 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Howell’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Howell Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.76 176 68% 3.16 82 32% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweel ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113388)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Sample Size = 138 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 32% 16% 10% 13% 5% 24% 2.75 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 35% 17% 21% 16% 8% 2% 2.57 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 30% 20% 17% 10% 7% 17% 2.68 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 44% 25% 14% 6% 7% 5% 2.97 3.37 Overall Case Management 2.74 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 38% 20% 19% 11% 10% 3% 2.68 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 42% 22% 12% 13% 8% 3% 2.79 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 47% 18% 13% 6% 8% 8% 2.97 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 45% 20% 15% 8% 9% 5% 2.88 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.83 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 54% 23% 14% 3% 4% 2% 3.24 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 37% 13% 7% 4% 6% 34% 3.07 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.16 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 56% 21% 12% 5% 5% 1% 3.20 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 16% 8% 2% 6% 2% 3.38 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 53% 19% 14% 5% 8% 2% 3.06 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 45% 21% 13% 8% 11% 2% 2.83 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.12 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 44% 20% 14% 8% 13% 2% 2.75 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 47% 17% 14% 8% 8% 7% 2.92 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 53% 18% 8% 4% 6% 11% 3.23 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.97 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 2.94 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 19% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 17% 25% Completely neutral 52% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 30% 55% Recommend retain 28% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 17% 9% Recommend not retain 16% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 7% Total Retain 58% 78% Neither 17% 9% Total Not Retain 25% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 2.94 Overall Average Grade 3.30 2.74 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.75 case after trial. 3.50 2.57 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 2.68 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.97 3.37 2.83 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2.68 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 2.79 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 2.97 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2.88 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.16 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.24 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.07 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.12 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.20 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.38 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.06 neutral manner. 3.20 2.83 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 2.97 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.75 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.92 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.23 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 19% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 17% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 52% Completely Neutral 51% 7% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 666 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained or not retained in office? 30% Strongly recommend retain 55% 28% Recommend retain 23% 17% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Howell Judges* Total Retain 58% 78% 16% Neither 17% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 25% 13% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 777 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweel ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 225588)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Sample Size = 258 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 68% 22% 6% 2% 0% 2% 3.59 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 19% 5% 0% 1% 2% 3.67 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 72% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.59 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 20% 4% 3% 1% 7% 3.57 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.61 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 74% 16% 6% 1% 0% 2% 3.66 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 12% 3% 2% 1% 32% 3.62 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 17% 4% 0% 1% 4% 3.69 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.64 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 71% 21% 5% 2% 0% 2% 3.63 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 71% 21% 5% 2% 0% 2% 3.64 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 68% 23% 5% 1% 2% 2% 3.57 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.61 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 57% 23% 10% 2% 2% 6% 3.40 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 68% 20% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.56 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 19% 7% 2% 2% 14% 3.50 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 18% 4% 2% 1% 8% 3.60 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 57% 22% 11% 4% 2% 4% 3.32 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.48 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 19% 5% 2% 2% 9% 3.55 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 14% 2% 3% 2% 20% 3.55 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 18% 5% 2% 2% 9% 3.53 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.54 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11977 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% 11% Competely neutral 84% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.15 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% 10% Competely neutral 81% 76% Lenient sentencing total 11% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.07 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 60% 68% Recommend retain 27% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% 6% Recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 87% 86% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111880 ## Page 14 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.57 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.61 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.59 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.67 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.59 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.57 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.64 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.66 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.58 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.69 or her case. 3.60 3.61 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.63 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.64 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.57 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell 111991 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.48 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.40 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.56 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.50 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.60 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.32 little wasted time. 3.51 3.54 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.55 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.55 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.53 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.15 Byron L. Howell 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.07 Byron L. Howell -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 221002 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained or not retained in office? 60% Strongly recommend retain 68% 27% Recommend retain 18% 6% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Howell Judges* 3% Total Retain 87% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Byron L. Howell All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 221113 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 331335 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 331446 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 331557 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 331668 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Howell is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 331779 ## Page 23 Judge Byron L. Howell 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 184 117 17 0 50 29.9% Defense Attorneys 319 187 44 0 88 32.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 504 305 61 0 138 31.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 107 61 17 8 21 23.3% Law Enforcement 275 187 56 8 24 11.0% Defendant 432 257 140 3 32 11.0% Jurors 501 281 25 19 176 37.0% Employees, including Interpreters 16 8 3 0 5 38.5% Total Non-attorneys 1331 794 241 38 258 23.7% Grand Total: 1835 1099 302 38 396 25.8% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 332880 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
• 2010 cycle
  • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweellll 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Byron L. Howell Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Howell: 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. Byron L. Howell 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, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 2.96, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.56, Judge Byron L. Howell’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.26. Judge Howell Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.26 2.96 3.56 Sample Size - 73 189 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Howell from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Howell’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Howell Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 3.48 3.37 3 3.59 17 2009 3.14 2.79 25 3.48 109 2010 3.37 3.04 45 3.70 63 Overall 3.26 2.96 73 3.56 189 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 county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. 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 1 ## Page 5 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 Howell’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges. Judge Howell Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2007 % % 3.82 3.30 2008 3.63 16 94% 2.95 1 6% 3.82 3.26 2009 3.63 84 77% 2.99 25 23% 3.83 3.22 2010 3.73 58 92% 3.31 5 8% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.67 158 84% 3.04 31 16% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Howell’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county 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 BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweel ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7733)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Sample Size = 73 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 33% 19% 14% 4% 7% 23% 2.88 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 29% 32% 18% 11% 8% 3% 2.63 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 27% 23% 15% 7% 4% 23% 2.82 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 36% 22% 18% 7% 7% 11% 2.82 3.39 Overall Case Management 2.79 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 22% 12% 8% 10% 3% 2.87 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 48% 23% 4% 11% 11% 3% 2.89 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 49% 12% 10% 8% 10% 11% 2.94 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 46% 21% 7% 6% 9% 12% 3.00 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.93 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 48% 30% 10% 4% 4% 4% 3.19 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 36% 11% 5% 4% 5% 38% 3.09 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.14 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 53% 25% 10% 3% 8% 1% 3.14 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 12% 10% 3% 8% 3% 3.25 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 52% 19% 14% 3% 11% 1% 3.00 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 18% 4% 11% 8% 5% 3.03 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.11 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 21% 5% 10% 12% 1% 2.89 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 15% 10% 10% 11% 5% 2.87 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 48% 15% 10% 5% 7% 15% 3.08 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.95 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 2.96 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Judges Sample Size = 73 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 19% 28% Completely neutral 54% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 6% 5% 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 60% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 19% 7% Total Retain 73% 88% Total Not Retain 26% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 56% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 18% 6% Total Retain 69% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 5% Total Not Retain 25% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.96 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.79 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.88 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.63 proceedings. 3.44 2.82 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.82 3.39 2.93 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.87 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.89 3.16 2.94 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.00 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.14 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.19 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.09 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Byron L. Howell All County Judges Judge Byron L. Howell 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.11 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.14 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.25 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.00 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.03 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 2.95 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.89 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.87 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.08 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 21% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 19% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 54% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 6% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Byron L. Howell All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 71% 13% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Howell Judges 7% Total Retain 73% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 26% 13% 6% 19% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 56% Strongly recommend retain 68% 13% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 7% Judge Howell Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 69% 84% Undecided or DK 7% 5% 7% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 25% 12% 6% 18% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Byron L. Howell All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BByyrroonn LL.. HHoowweel ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 118899)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Sample Size = 189 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 68% 28% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.60 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 21% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.68 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 73% 19% 4% 2% 1% 0% 3.62 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 27% 3% 2% 1% 4% 3.56 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.62 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 19% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 22% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3.61 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 44% 14% 2% 0% 2% 39% 3.62 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 71% 21% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.64 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 18% 3% 2% 2% 0% 3.65 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 71% 24% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3.62 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 68% 23% 5% 3% 1% 1% 3.54 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.60 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 55% 26% 12% 4% 2% 2% 3.32 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 70% 23% 4% 2% 1% 0% 3.58 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 18% 6% 2% 2% 16% 3.50 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 19% 3% 0% 2% 10% 3.63 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 55% 23% 13% 3% 3% 2% 3.27 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.46 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 60% 19% 5% 1% 3% 12% 3.50 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 52% 17% 4% 1% 2% 24% 3.54 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 58% 20% 5% 1% 3% 12% 3.47 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Byron L. Howell Byron L. Howell All County Judges Sample Size = 189 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% 12% Competely neutral 87% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.02 0.12 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 9% 12% Competely neutral 88% 77% Lenient sentencing total 4% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.12 0.06 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 81% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 15% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Total Retain 96% 92% Total Not Retain 4% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 12% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 5% Total Retain 85% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 12% 8% Total Not Retain 4% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.56 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.62 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.60 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.68 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.62 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.64 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.67 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.61 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.64 or her case. 3.59 3.60 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.65 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.62 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.54 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Byron L. Howell All County Judges Judge Byron L. Howell 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.46 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.32 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.58 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.50 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.63 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.27 little wasted time. 3.50 3.50 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.50 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.54 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.47 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.02 Byron L. Howell 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.12 Byron L. Howell 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Byron L. Howell All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Byron L. Howell All County Judges Judge Byron L. Howell Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Howell be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 15% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Howell Judges Total Retain 96% 92% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 4% 8% 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 72% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 13% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 12% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Howell Judges Total Retain 85% 85% 2% Undecided 12% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 4% 7% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Byron L. Howell All County 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 Howell 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 Byron L. Howell 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 145 108 1 0 36 25.0% Defense Attorneys 170 133 0 0 37 21.8% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 316 242 1 0 73 23.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 93 55 29 5 4 6.3% Law Enforcement 81 56 11 8 6 8.6% Defendant 277 153 100 5 19 10.7% Jurors 476 270 30 18 158 35.4% Employees 3 0 0 1 2 66.7% Total Non-attorneys 930 534 170 37 189 24.9% Grand Total: 1246 776 171 37 262 24.4% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 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 County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 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 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 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 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 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
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

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

Sources

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026