Amanda Jean Hunter

Evaluation history

• 2026 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Chaffee · Chaffee

  Meets Standards
  VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
  Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Eleventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by vote of 7-0, with two members absent and one vacancy on the Commission, that Judge Amanda Hunter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Hunter presides over civil, domestic relations, juvenile, mental health, probate, and criminal cases in her courtroom. Judge Hunter's overall performance, as rated by people responding to the surveys, confirmed that she meets the performance standards. Comments included that she provides thorough and fair judgement in her decision making. Judge Hunter was found to be decisive and professional. The Commission reviewed a sampling of Judge Hunter’s opinions and found them to be clear and well written. Judge Hunter received high marks for understanding and applying the law, even in complicated matters. Judge Hunter has adapted well to the challenges and opportunities presented by the virtual environment and live streaming in her courtroom. The Commission observed Judge Hunter being patient, clear and concise with litigants and attorneys to ensure everyone in the courtroom understood the proceedings. In her interview Judge Hunter continued to show a high degree of understanding of the court’s processes, administration, and role in the community, as well as, a strong understanding of the power and corresponding responsibility the courts have to their constituents. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Hunter meets judicial performance standards. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hunter, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Hunter. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 89% answered “yes, meets performance standards”, 11% answered “no, does not meet performance standards”, and 0% had no opinion regarding whether Judge Hunter meets or does not meet performance standards. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 61% answered, “yes, meets performance standards”, 28% answered “no, does not meet performance standards”, and 11% had no opinion regarding whether Judge Hunter meets or does not meet performance standards. A total of nine attorneys and eighteen non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Hunter’s performance. District Court Judge Amanda Hunter was appointed in November 2022 and sits in Park County. She is the Chief Judge of the 11th Judicial District and sits on the District’s Access to Justice Committee. Prior to her district court appointment, Judge Hunter served for seven years as the County Court Judge for Custer County and as a District Court Magistrate for Chaffee County. Prior to her judicial appointment, she practiced in criminal law. JudgeHunter has lived and worked in the 11th Judicial District since 2011. She earned her law degree from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Iowa. Judge Hunter enjoys all the outdoor activities that Colorado has to offer but finds skiing to be her absolute favorite.
• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Custer · Custer

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 70.3% yes

  1,705 yes · 722 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Eleventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (8-0) finds that Judge Amanda Jean Hunter MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Hunter received a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration in 2002 from The University of Iowa where she majored in marketing, finance and received an emphasis in accounting. In 2011, she graduated with a Degree of Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Upon graduating, she was hired full time by the Colorado State Public Defender and practiced in the 11th Judicial District in both District and County Court until she was appointed to the Custer County Court in January 2016. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hunter, reviewed opinions she authored, observed her in court, reviewed comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Hunter in her capacity as County Court Judge. A total of six attorneys and twenty-three non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Hunter’s performance. Among the survey questions was "Do you think Judge Hunter meets judicial performance standards?" Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 67% answered ‘yes, meets performance standards,’ and 33% answered ‘no, does not meet performance standards.’ Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 75% answered ‘yes, meets performance standards,’ 17% answered ‘no, does not meet performance standards,’ and 8% had no opinion regarding whether Judge Hunter meets or does not meet performance standards. These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.   Judge Hunter presides over civil, criminal, misdemeanor, traffic, and small claim cases in her courtroom. Judge Hunter's overall performance as rated by both attorneys and non-attorneys responding to the surveys is consistent with the average rating of all county judges standing for retention. Judge Hunter received slightly higher marks from non-attorneys than from attorneys. Both courtroom observations from the commission and comments from survey respondents pointed to Judge Hunter’s ability and desire to calmly and clearly communicate all facets of the proceedings taking place. Additionally, Judge Hunter received above-average marks for her diligence and willingness to thoroughly research and tackle cases regardless of their level of complexity. Judge Hunter has been on the bench for just over two years, and survey results indicate an initial weakness related to the timeliness of rulings and verbosity in the courtroom. Judge Hunter has indicated that she has identified these weaknesses and is taking affirmative steps to improve these issues. Specifically, she continues to gain experience and confidence which will allow her to continue to improve in these areas. Based on these findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Hunter meets judicial performance standards. Two members abstained from voting.

Surveys & reports

• 2026 cycle
  • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter, 45 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 31 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 31 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 3.92 4 3.78 3.49 3.45 3.34 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.49 3.78 3.45 3.92 3.34 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 90% 87% 84% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 90% 100% 87% 100% 84% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.60 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.70 3.41 4.00 3.27 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.70 3.47 3.73 3.41 Diligence 3.88 3.33 3.88 3.20 Demeanor 4.00 3.47 4.00 3.35 Fairness N/A 3.56 4.00 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 29 0 10 34% 50% Total Non- 325 37 35 11% 26% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 12 0 5 42% 0% Other Non- 313 37 30 10% 30% 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 Amanda Hunter 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hunter, 10 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 5 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 5 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Amanda Hunter be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Amanda Hunter Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 60% 54% 40% 40% 22% 20% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.60 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.75 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.60 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.75 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 6 Case Management Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 5 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.60 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.70 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.60 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.80 3.19 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.75 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.80 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Hunter Judges Being able to identify and analyze 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.70 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.70 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 3.50 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 8 Communications All Judge Amanda Hunter Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 5 Judges Making sure all participants 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 40% 40% -- -- -- 20% 3.50 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.70 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 4.00 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.32 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Amanda Hunter Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 4 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 75% -- -- -- -- 25% 4.00 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.88 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 4.00 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 10 Diligence Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Hunter Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 50% -- -- -- -- 50% 4.00 3.26 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.88 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Hunter in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 100% 80% 60% 52% 40% 27% 20% 11% 8% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Amanda Hunter, 35 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 26 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 26 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Hunter be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Amanda Hunter Total Retain 87% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 7% Figure 10 100% 80% 67% 64% 60% 40% 20% 17% 20% 7% 7% 7% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.47 3.35 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.42 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.38 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.69 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.38 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 12 Demeanor Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Hunter Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 58% 31% 8% -- 4% -- 3.38 3.47 Treating participants with respect 77% 19% -- 4% -- -- 3.69 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 73% 8% 12% -- 8% -- 3.38 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 65% 23% 4% 4% 4% -- 3.42 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.47 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.56 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.47 case 3.88 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.57 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.42 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 13 Fairness Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 26 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 69% 23% 4% -- 4% -- 3.54 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 69% 19% 4% -- 8% -- 3.42 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 62% 12% 4% -- 4% 19% 3.57 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 85% 12% -- -- -- 4% 3.88 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.47 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.48 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.50 Making sure all participants understand the 3.54 proceedings 3.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 14 Communications Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Hunter Judges Making sure all participants 68% 20% 8% 4% -- -- 3.52 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 65% 23% 8% 4% -- -- 3.50 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 76% 12% -- 8% 4% -- 3.48 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.47 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.33 3.45 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.28 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.39 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.54 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.38 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.32 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 15 Diligence Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Hunter Judges Beginning court on time 65% 12% 8% 8% 4% 4% 3.32 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 69% 4% 12% -- 8% 8% 3.38 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 65% 23% 12% -- -- -- 3.54 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 54% 19% 12% 4% -- 12% 3.39 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 62% 15% 12% -- 8% 4% 3.28 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.33 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.41 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.64 3.41 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.59 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.31 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 16 Application of Law Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 26 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 58% 31% 4% -- 8% -- 3.31 3.37 Willing to make decision without 62% 15% 4% 4% -- 15% 3.59 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 73% 19% -- -- 4% 4% 3.64 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.41 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Hunter is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Hunter is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 80% 73% 74% 60% 40% 20% 12% 12% 7% 4% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter are. If you feel Judge Hunter generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 80% 72% 58% 60% 40% 20% 12% 15% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 6% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 25
  • 2026 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.

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

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter, 45 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 31 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 31 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 3.92 4 3.78 3.49 3.45 3.34 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.49 3.78 3.45 3.92 3.34 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 90% 87% 84% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 90% 100% 87% 100% 84% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.60 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.70 3.41 4.00 3.27 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.70 3.47 3.73 3.41 Diligence 3.88 3.33 3.88 3.20 Demeanor 4.00 3.47 4.00 3.35 Fairness N/A 3.56 4.00 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 29 0 10 34% 50% Total Non- 325 37 35 11% 26% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 12 0 5 42% 0% Other Non- 313 37 30 10% 30% 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 Amanda Hunter 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hunter, 10 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 5 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 5 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Amanda Hunter be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Amanda Hunter Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 60% 54% 40% 40% 22% 20% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.60 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.75 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.60 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.75 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 6 Case Management Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 5 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.60 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.70 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.60 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.80 3.19 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.75 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.80 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 5 Hunter Judges Being able to identify and analyze 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 80% 20% -- -- -- -- 3.80 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 60% 40% -- -- -- -- 3.60 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.70 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.70 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 3.50 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 8 Communications All Judge Amanda Hunter Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 5 Judges Making sure all participants 60% 20% -- -- -- 20% 3.75 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 40% 40% -- -- -- 20% 3.50 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.70 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 4.00 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.32 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Amanda Hunter Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 4 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 75% -- -- -- -- 25% 4.00 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.88 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 4.00 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 3.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 10 Diligence Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 4 Hunter Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 75% 25% -- -- -- -- 3.75 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 50% -- -- -- -- 50% 4.00 3.26 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.88 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Hunter in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 100% 80% 60% 52% 40% 27% 20% 11% 8% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Amanda Hunter, 35 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 26 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 26 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Hunter be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Amanda Hunter Total Retain 87% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 7% Figure 10 100% 80% 67% 64% 60% 40% 20% 17% 20% 7% 7% 7% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.47 3.35 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.42 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.38 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.69 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.38 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 12 Demeanor Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Hunter Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 58% 31% 8% -- 4% -- 3.38 3.47 Treating participants with respect 77% 19% -- 4% -- -- 3.69 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 73% 8% 12% -- 8% -- 3.38 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 65% 23% 4% 4% 4% -- 3.42 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.47 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.56 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.47 case 3.88 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.57 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.42 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 13 Fairness Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 26 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 69% 23% 4% -- 4% -- 3.54 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 69% 19% 4% -- 8% -- 3.42 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 62% 12% 4% -- 4% 19% 3.57 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 85% 12% -- -- -- 4% 3.88 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.47 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.48 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.50 Making sure all participants understand the 3.54 proceedings 3.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 14 Communications Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Hunter Judges Making sure all participants 68% 20% 8% 4% -- -- 3.52 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 65% 23% 8% 4% -- -- 3.50 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 76% 12% -- 8% 4% -- 3.48 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.47 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.33 3.45 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.28 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.39 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.54 3.50 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.38 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.32 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 15 Diligence Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 26 Hunter Judges Beginning court on time 65% 12% 8% 8% 4% 4% 3.32 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 69% 4% 12% -- 8% 8% 3.38 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 65% 23% 12% -- -- -- 3.54 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 54% 19% 12% 4% -- 12% 3.39 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 62% 15% 12% -- 8% 4% 3.28 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.33 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 3.41 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.64 3.41 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure 3.59 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.31 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Hunter Table 16 Application of Law Judge Amanda Hunter All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Hunter Number of Responses: 26 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 58% 31% 4% -- 8% -- 3.31 3.37 Willing to make decision without 62% 15% 4% 4% -- 15% 3.59 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 73% 19% -- -- 4% 4% 3.64 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.41 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Hunter is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Hunter is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 80% 73% 74% 60% 40% 20% 12% 12% 7% 4% 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 Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter are. If you feel Judge Hunter generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 80% 72% 58% 60% 40% 20% 12% 15% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 6% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Hunter All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 25
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    73%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    75%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter, 34 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 29 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 29 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.84 3.39 3.43 3.26 3.23 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.39 3.26 3.43 3.84 3.23 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 80% 75% 73% 67% 63% 60% 40% 33% 25% 20% 20% 17% 13% 7% 8% 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 Amanda Hunter Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 73% 67% 75% 100% 63% standards No, does not meet performance 20% 33% 17% 0% 25% standards No opinion 7% 0% 8% 0% 13% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Amanda Hunter Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.50 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.01 3.06 3.87 2.67 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.25 3.72 3.93 3.60 Diligence 3.44 3.57 3.74 3.55 Demeanor 3.11 3.47 3.80 3.27 Fairness N/A 3.31 3.85 3.05 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 36 0 8 22% 25% Total Non- 311 93 26 12% 12% Attorneys Staff 4 0 3 75% 0% Jurors 7 0 5 71% 0% Other Non- 300 93 18 9% 17% 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 Amanda Hunter 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Hunter, 8 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 6 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 6 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.5 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.83 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 4 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.5 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Amanda A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Hunter Promptly issuing a decision on the 5 1 -- -- -- -- 6 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3 2 -- -- 1 -- 6 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 4 -- -- -- -- 2 6 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 1 1 -- -- -- 6 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.01 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.5 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 2.83 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.75 are similar 3.15 2.67 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 2.83 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 4 1 1 -- -- -- 6 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3 1 1 -- 1 -- 6 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 1 -- -- -- -- 4 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3 1 -- 1 1 -- 6 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 1 1 -- 1 -- 6 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.25 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.33 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.75 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 5 -- -- -- 1 -- 6 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3 1 -- -- -- 1 5 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.11 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.17 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 3.17 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 4 1 -- -- 1 -- 6 dignity Treating participants with respect 4 1 -- -- 1 -- 6 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 4 -- 1 -- 1 -- 6 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Hunter 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 3.44 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.5 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.8 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 3 1 1 1 -- -- 6 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 4 1 1 -- -- -- 6 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 4 1 -- -- -- 1 6 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 Amanda Hunter 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Hunter meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Amanda Hunter Yes, meets performance 67% standards No, does not meet 33% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Amanda Hunter, 26 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 23 agreed they had worked with Judge Hunter enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 23 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 Amanda Hunter 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 3.47 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.58 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.52 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.42 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.38 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 18 3 2 1 -- -- 24 Treating participants with respect 18 2 1 1 1 -- 23 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 18 2 2 -- 2 -- 24 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 18 1 3 -- 2 -- 24 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 Amanda Hunter 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 3.31 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.21 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.38 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.29 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.23 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 17 1 2 2 2 -- 24 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 17 3 2 -- 2 -- 24 case without bias Treating fairly people who 14 3 2 -- 2 3 24 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 15 2 1 3 1 2 24 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 Amanda Hunter 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 3.72 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.78 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.7 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 20 2 1 -- 1 -- 24 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 19 3 1 -- -- -- 23 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 19 2 1 1 -- -- 23 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 Amanda Hunter 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 3.57 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.82 for cases 3.64 3.57 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.67 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.48 wasted time 3.55 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 16 7 -- -- 1 -- 24 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 19 2 1 -- -- 2 24 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 14 8 1 -- -- 1 24 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 15 5 1 -- -- 3 24 Managing court proceedings so that there is 15 6 1 -- 1 1 24 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 Amanda Hunter 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 3.06 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.17 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.14 outside pressure 3.55 2.96 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Hunter All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Amanda Hunter A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 17 2 1 -- 4 -- 24 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 15 2 1 1 3 2 24 pressure Being able to identify and 17 1 -- -- 6 -- 24 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 Amanda Hunter 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Hunter meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Amanda Hunter Yes, meets performance 75% standards No, does not meet 17% performance standards No opinion 8% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Amanda Hunter 22

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

• 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026