Barney Iuppa

Evaluation history

• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 67.0% yes

  110,847 yes · 54,587 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a unanimous vote of 8-0, recommends that Judge Barney Iuppa BE RETAINED. Two Commissioners were absent. Judge Iuppa graduated from the University of Denver Law School’s night program. Judge Iuppa’s community activities include serving on the board of directors and as past president of the Multiple Sclerosis Alliance of Southern Colorado. He just completed a term on the statewide Access to Justice Commission, and currently supports the high school Mock Trial and Teen Court programs. Judge Iuppa also coordinates the court AA program. Judge Iuppa was appointed to the District Court bench on July 1, 2008. Prior to that appointment he had been a County Court Judge since 1995. Judge Iuppa had previously served as a Deputy Public Defender and as the elected District Attorney, and had a private practice in between some of those other positions. Judge Iuppa’s current docket is evenly split between criminal and family law. The Commission considered survey data and comments, an interview of Judge Iuppa, courtroom observations, case management data and Judge Iuppa’s self-evaluation. Judge Iuppa’s rating among attorneys as being “completely neutral,” rather than biased in favor of either the prosecution or the defense was significantly higher than the statewide average for district court judges. His demeanor score on the attorney survey was significantly lower than the statewide average for all district court judges. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 88% recommended to retain, 11% not to retain, and 3% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 90% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 82% recommended to retain, 5% not to retain, and 13% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 95% recommended to retain and 6% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2006 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 62.6% yes

  88,645 yes · 52,998 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, in a 9 to 1 vote from all members, recommends Judge Barney Iuppa BE RETAINED. Judge Iuppa was appointed to the 4th Judicial District County Court bench in July, 1995. A graduate of the University of Denver, College of Law, Judge Iuppa previously served as a Deputy Public Defender from 1973 to 1977 and as the Fourth Judicial District, District Attorney from 1985 to 1989. He then served in private practice until his appointment to the bench in 1995. Judge Iuppa currently is the presiding County Court Judge. Judge Iuppa is involved in a number of community activities like the Multiple Sclerosis Alliance of Southern Colorado and coaching a high school mock trial team. Not withstanding the Commission's recommendation that Judge Iuppa be retained, the Commission is concerned with Judge Iuppa's courtroom demeanor. Many survey responses from attorneys noted Judge Iuppa was moody and rude at times. These concerns regarding his demeanor were evident in the 2002 survey. Consequently, together the Commission and Judge Iuppa developed a performance improvement plan to address his courtroom demeanor. The Commission considered 171 written evaluations of Judge Iuppa from attorneys and non-attorneys, a self-evaluation completed by Judge Iuppa, a courtroom observation and conducted two personal interviews. Written survey results showed 65% of attorneys recommended retention and 35% recommending non-retention. The survey results also showed 89% of non-attorneys recommended retention and 10% recommending non-retention.
• 2002 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Barney Iuppa BE RETAINED. Judge Iuppa was appointed to the El Paso County Court bench in July 1995. A graduate of the University of Denver, Judge Iuppa previously served as a Deputy State Public Defender from 1973 to 1977 and also as a Fourth Judicial District Attorney from 1985 to 1989. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Iuppa from attorneys and non-attorneys, a self-evaluation completed by Judge Iuppa and conducted two personal interviews with the judge. Written survey results showed that 60% of the attorneys recommended retention, with 12% expressing no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 83% recommended retention and 12% had no opinion. Judge Iuppa possesses a personal judicial philosophy of accountability. He participated in the creation of the county court’s first appearance center and "fast-track" domestic violence program, and actively assists the district court with docket overflow. Judge Iuppa is considered a strict, no-nonsense judge and he consistently strives to teach attorneys to be prompt and prepared. He communicates to attorneys in a very direct manner but needs to improve his communication skills to become more effective. His stated goal is to help young attorneys gain experience and develop excellent advocacy skills.
• 1998 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Barney Iuppa BE RETAINED. Barney Iuppa graduated from the University of Denver School of Law in 1973 and was subsequently admitted to the Bar of Colorado. From 1973 through 1976, he was a Public Defender, Colorado Springs Regional Office. From 1977 through 1984, he was in private practice with emphasis on trial law. From 1984 through 1989, he was the District Attorney of the 4th Judicial District. From 1989 through 1995, he was in private practice. He has been an El Paso County Judge from 1995 through present. In the self-evaluation, Judge Iuppa described his strengths as maintaining an efficient courtroom in which the docket can move expeditiously, with 20 years of litigation experience. Judge Iuppa defined his goals as attending more legal and court workshops. To his credit, the majority of those polled believe he is competent and fair. The section of the poll in which various groups evaluate Judge Iuppa was quite favorable. Of those responding, 90.9% of court/probation employees, 73.7% law enforcement, 100% crime victims, 96.9% jurors and 69% attorney's felt he should be retained. Given these responses, it is the recommendation of the Commission that Judge Iuppa be retained.

Surveys & reports

• 2010 cycle
  • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BBaarrnneeyy IIuuppppaa 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Barney Iuppa El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80901 Dear Judge Iuppa: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Barney Iuppa September 24, 2009 Page 2 Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BBaarrnneeyy IIuupaa ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3377)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Barney Iuppa All District Sample Size = 37 A B C D Fail DK/NA Barney Iuppa Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 5% 0% 0% 27% 3.59 3.38 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 24% 8% 3% 0% 0% 3.51 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 57% 27% 3% 3% 0% 11% 3.55 3.19 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 38% 3% 3% 0% 8% 3.44 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.52 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 33% 8% 3% 0% 3% 3.40 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 54% 27% 14% 3% 0% 3% 3.36 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 27% 30% 14% 11% 0% 19% 2.90 2.89 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 31% 6% 0% 0% 22% 3.44 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.28 3.10 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 49% 43% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.41 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 30% 30% 4% 4% 0% 33% 3.28 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.35 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 62% 22% 5% 5% 5% 0% 3.30 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 43% 27% 16% 8% 5% 0% 2.95 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 51% 24% 16% 3% 5% 0% 3.14 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 57% 30% 8% 3% 3% 0% 3.35 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.19 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 49% 38% 8% 5% 0% 0% 3.30 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 54% 27% 8% 5% 0% 5% 3.37 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 32% 3% 3% 0% 11% 3.48 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.38 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.34 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Barney Iuppa All District Barney Iuppa Judges Sample Size = 37 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 28% Completely neutral 68% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 11% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 83% 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 3% 7% Total Retain 94% 87% Total Not Retain 6% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 78% 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 3% 6% Total Retain 89% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 5% Total Not Retain 6% 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.34 Overall Average Grade 3.26 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.52 3.30 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.59 case after trial. 3.38 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.51 proceedings. 3.39 3.55 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.19 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.44 3.22 3.28 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.10 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.40 relevant facts. 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.36 3.16 2.90 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.89 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.44 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.07 3.35 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.41 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.28 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.28 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2J00u9 dIntgeriem JBudaiciraln Peerfyor mIauncpe pSuarvey 4 ## Page 8 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.19 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.30 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.46 2.95 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.35 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.14 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.35 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.21 3.38 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.26 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.30 releveant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.37 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.48 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 21% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 68% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Dist Judge Iuppa Judges 3% Total Retain 94% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 6% 13% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 78% Strongly recommend retain in office 68% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Dist 5% Judge Iuppa Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 89% 83% Undecided 5% 5% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 6% 12% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BBaarrnneeyy IIuupaa ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 116611)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Barney Iuppa All District Sample Size = 161 A B C D Fail DK/NA Barney Iuppa Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 22% 3% 4% 2% 0% 3.51 3.67 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 71% 17% 5% 3% 4% 0% 3.48 3.67 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 19% 2% 4% 4% 0% 3.48 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 19% 7% 2% 6% 1% 3.37 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.46 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 4% 2% 1% 3.53 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 71% 16% 3% 4% 4% 1% 3.47 3.60 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 42% 11% 2% 2% 2% 40% 3.50 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 17% 2% 2% 4% 2% 3.53 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.51 3.62 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 12% 4% 2% 4% 1% 3.58 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 78% 12% 6% 4% 1% 0% 3.63 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 5% 2% 1% 0% 3.68 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 64% 26% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3.53 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 16% 2% 1% 1% 0% 3.72 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 19% 6% 1% 1% 9% 3.57 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 69% 17% 2% 2% 2% 6% 3.58 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 25% 5% 1% 2% 1% 3.55 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.59 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 14% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.47 3.56 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 65% 13% 2% 2% 3% 14% 3.59 3.59 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 14% 3% 2% 4% 6% 3.55 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.54 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Barney Iuppa All District Barney Iuppa Judges Sample Size = 161 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% 11% Competely neutral 84% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.01 0.11 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 14% 11% Competely neutral 78% 80% Lenient sentencing total 9% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.28 0.12 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 86% 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 5% Total Retain 93% 93% Total Not Retain 6% 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 4% Total Retain 83% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 10% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall Average Grade 3.63 3.46 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.51 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.67 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.48 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.48 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.37 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.55 3.51 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.62 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.53 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.47 case without bias. 3.60 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.50 themselves. 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.53 or her case. 3.64 3.63 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.58 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.69 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.63 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.68 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2J00u9 Idntegrime JBudiaciarl nPeerfoyrm Iauncpe Spuravey 10 ## Page 14 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.59 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.53 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.72 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.57 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.58 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.55 little wasted time. 3.55 3.54 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.58 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.59 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.55 relevant facts. 3.58 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.01 Barney Iuppa 0.11 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.28 Barney Iuppa 0.12 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Barney Iuppa All District Judges Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Iuppa Judges Total Retain 93% 93% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 6% 7% 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 10% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Iuppa Judges Total Retain 83% 88% 0% Undecided 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning district judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in District Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Iuppa. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Iuppa is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Barney Iuppa Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 31 20 0 0 11 35.5% Defense Attorneys 15 1 4 0 10 90.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 11 4 0 0 7 63.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 13 5 0 0 8 61.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Total Attorneys 72 31 4 0 37 54.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 95 55 36 0 4 6.8% Other 78 47 25 1 5 9.4% Law Enforcement 155 85 43 2 25 22.3% Defendant 318 153 144 3 18 10.3% Civil Litigant 104 70 25 0 9 11.4% Jurors 178 61 17 0 100 62.1% Total Non-attorneys 928 471 290 6 161 25.2% Grand Total: 1000 502 294 6 198 28.0% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all district judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all district judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all district judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 3921 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 21% 7% 3% 1% 21% 3.39 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 21% 7% 3% 1% 21% 3.38 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 25% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 26% 11% 4% 2% 13% 3.19 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 26% 11% 4% 2% 13% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 28% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 28% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.28 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 28% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 27% 11% 6% 3% 4% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 29% 20% 11% 6% 4% 29% 2.89 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 30% 22% 10% 4% 3% 31% 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.10 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 46% 26% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 65% 22% 7% 3% 2% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 63% 20% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 22% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.25 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 22% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 51% 26% 11% 5% 3% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 49% 28% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 6% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 20% 8% 4% 2% 16% 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 20% 8% 4% 2% 16% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 3921 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 17850 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 77% 15% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.60 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.61 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.62 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 15% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.59 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 17850 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.11 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 11% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.12 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BBaarrnneeyy IIuuppppaa 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Barney Iuppa El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Iuppa: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on three surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of appellate judges and third a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Barney Iuppa March 30, 2010 Page 2 The fifth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Barney Iuppa an overall average grade1 of 3.25, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Iuppa an overall average grade of 3.57 resulting in a combined grade of 3.41. The average combined grade for all district judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.48. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Iuppa Average Grades Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.41 3.25 3.57 Sample Size - 41 62 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Iuppa’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Iuppa Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Grade2 Average Grade Average Grade 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.46 3.25 3.10 3.67 Sample Size - - - - 0 0 0 41 0 0 10 52 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 District judges who were appointed between 2005 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 61%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for district judges was 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Iuppa’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district Judge Iuppa Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.88 3.20 Percent of Sample 55% 45% Sample Size 34 28 District Judge Average 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Iuppa’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BBaarrnneeyy IIuupaa ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4411)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Barney Iuppa All District Sample Size = 41 A B C D Fail DK/NA Barney Iuppa Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 61% 10% 10% 0% 0% 20% 3.64 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 5% 0% 0% 3.46 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 54% 27% 5% 2% 0% 12% 3.50 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 29% 7% 5% 0% 5% 3.38 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.50 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 29% 5% 7% 0% 2% 3.38 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 56% 22% 12% 2% 5% 2% 3.25 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 22% 24% 17% 5% 5% 27% 2.73 3.09 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 46% 29% 7% 0% 0% 18% 3.48 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.21 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 41% 41% 10% 5% 0% 2% 3.23 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 29% 27% 5% 7% 0% 32% 3.14 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.19 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 17% 7% 2% 10% 0% 3.22 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 41% 24% 17% 7% 10% 0% 2.80 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 46% 27% 15% 2% 10% 0% 2.98 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 2% 7% 5% 3.18 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.05 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 46% 32% 12% 2% 5% 2% 3.15 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 29% 7% 7% 0% 5% 3.31 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 54% 24% 7% 5% 0% 10% 3.41 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.25 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Barney Iuppa All District Barney Iuppa Judges Sample Size = 41 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 27% Completely neutral 68% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 11% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 77% 74% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 6% Total Retain 90% 89% Total Not Retain 11% 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 14% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 6% Total Retain 88% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 4% Total Not Retain 11% 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.25 Overall Average Grade 3.32 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.50 3.34 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.64 case after trial. 3.42 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.46 proceedings. 3.43 3.50 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.38 3.25 3.21 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.38 relevant facts. 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.25 3.13 2.73 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.09 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.48 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.16 3.19 Q3. Overall Communication 3.44 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.23 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.14 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.32 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2J01u0 dJugdiceia l BPearforrmnaencye SIuurvpey pReaport 6 ## Page 10 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.05 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.22 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.51 2.80 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.98 in a neutral manner. 3.32 3.18 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.28 3.29 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.32 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.15 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.31 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.41 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 18% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 68% Completely Neutral 47% 4% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain 74% 13% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist Judge Iuppa Judges 3% Total Retain 90% 89% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 11% 11% 5% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain 70% 13% Somewhat recommend retain 14% All Dist 3% Judge Iuppa Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 88% 84% Undecided or DK 3% 4% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 11% 11% 5% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BBaarrnneeyy IIuupaa ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Barney Iuppa All Sample Size = 27 Retention No District Evaluations of Judge Iuppa = 13 A B C D Fail Grade Barney Iuppa Judges Judge Iuppa in terms of overall performance as a judge. 23% 23% 4% 0% 0% 50% 3.38 3.53 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. While 27 out of 29 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee BBaarrnneeyy IIuupaa ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6622)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Barney Iuppa All District Sample Size = 62 A B C D Fail DK/NA Barney Iuppa Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 23% 2% 5% 2% 0% 3.53 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 71% 18% 3% 6% 2% 0% 3.50 3.68 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 16% 2% 5% 3% 0% 3.53 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 19% 5% 5% 2% 3% 3.48 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.51 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 74% 15% 2% 6% 3% 0% 3.50 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 16% 7% 3% 3% 0% 3.48 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 47% 12% 0% 2% 3% 37% 3.53 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 12% 3% 2% 7% 3% 3.48 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.50 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 10% 6% 2% 5% 0% 3.53 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 15% 0% 3% 2% 0% 3.69 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 13% 3% 2% 2% 0% 3.68 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 73% 21% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 23% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3.71 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 21% 2% 3% 2% 8% 3.56 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 71% 18% 5% 2% 2% 3% 3.60 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 75% 16% 7% 0% 2% 0% 3.64 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 15% 2% 6% 3% 3% 3.48 3.57 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 71% 13% 0% 2% 2% 13% 3.72 3.60 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 16% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3.60 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Barney Iuppa All District Barney Iuppa Judges Sample Size = 62 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 2% 11% Competely neutral 86% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 12% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.30 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 4% 10% Competely neutral 81% 80% Lenient sentencing total 14% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.05 0.07 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 91% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 95% 93% Total Not Retain 6% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 3% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 13% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 82% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 6% Total Not Retain 5% 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.57 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.51 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.50 3.68 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.53 manner. 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.48 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.57 3.50 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.50 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.48 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.53 themselves. 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.48 or her case. 3.65 3.63 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.53 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.69 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.68 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2J01u0 Jdudgiceial PBeraforrmnanecey S uIruvepy Rpeaport 14 ## Page 18 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.63 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.64 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.71 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.56 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.60 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.64 little wasted time. 3.55 3.60 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.48 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.72 possible outside pressure. 3.60 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.60 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.30 Barney Iuppa 0.08 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.05 Barney Iuppa 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15 ## Page 19 Barney Iuppa All District Judges Judge Barney Iuppa Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 4% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Iuppa Judges Total Retain 95% 93% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 6% 6% 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 13% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Iuppa Judges Total Retain 82% 88% 3% Undecided 13% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 5% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Barney Iuppa All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: All 29 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning his or her overall performance as a judge. (See Questionnaire section.) The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were asked to write a comment about each district judge. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-seven questionnaires were returned, though not all 27 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Iuppa is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non- attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Judge Barney Iuppa Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 52 38 0 0 14 26.9% Defense Attorneys 30 17 1 0 12 41.4% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 37 22 0 0 15 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 121 79 1 0 41 34.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 137 80 44 2 11 11.8% Law Enforcement 14 8 3 2 1 9.1% Defendant 240 104 125 2 9 7.8% Civil Litigant 34 22 8 0 4 15.4% Jurors 75 36 3 2 34 47.2% Employees 8 3 1 1 3 42.9% Total Non-attorneys 508 253 184 9 62 19.1% Grand Total: 629 332 185 9 103 23.2% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1053 667 26 1 359 35.0% Defense Attorneys 1623 920 42 0 661 41.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 23 14 1 0 8 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2540 1157 133 4 1246 51.9% Guardian ad litem 14 5 0 0 9 64.3% Other Attorneys Civil 776 499 21 2 254 33.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role 30 7 5 0 18 72.0% Total Attorneys 6059 3269 228 7 2555 43.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 3572 1855 929 100 688 27.1% Defendant 11205 5065 5122 70 948 15.8% Victim 31 18 7 1 5 21.7% Witness 3941 2016 1271 186 468 18.8% Other 1045 590 309 11 135 18.6% Civil Litigant 8005 4441 1954 117 1493 25.2% Witness 266 133 61 6 66 33.2% Other 195 84 51 6 54 39.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 700 328 282 1 89 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 28960 14530 9986 498 3946 20.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 11195 4330 560 132 6173 58.8% Employees 283 113 35 22 113 50.0% Total Other 11507 4445 595 154 6313 57.9% Total 46526 22244 10809 659 12814 35.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. None of the three surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 2555 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.42 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 25% 10% 4% 2% 14% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 27% 11% 4% 2% 5% 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 24% 11% 6% 3% 13% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 21% 10% 5% 4% 20% 3.09 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 20% 8% 3% 2% 36% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 23% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.55 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 21% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 24% 10% 4% 3% 5% 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 25% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 54% 19% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 2555 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 89% Total Not Retain 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 30 ## Page 34 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 10232 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.63 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 8% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.62 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 16% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 6% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 11% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.60 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 31 ## Page 35 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 10232 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.07 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 32 ## Page 36 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges DK/ Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. 28% 15% 3% 0% 0% 54% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 37 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 38 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 39 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 40 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 41 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 42 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (continued) No Grade Dennis Hall .................... A B C D F James P. Kelly .............. A B C D F Philip J. McNulty ............ A B C D F Gilbert Martinez ............. A B C D F Stephen M. Munsinger .. A B C D F G. David Miller .............. A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 5th Judicial District Edward D. Bronfin ......... A B C D F R. Thomas Moorhead ... A B C D F Norman D. Haglund ...... A B C D F Karen A. Romeo ........... A B C D F William W. Hood, III ....... A B C D F Michael A. Martinez ....... A B C D F 6th Judicial District .... William D. Robbins ....... A B C D F Gregory G. Lyman ........ A B C D F Donna J. Schmalberger A B C D F Jeffrey R. Wilson ........... A B C D F Herbert L. Stern, III ........ A B C D F 7th Judicial District C. Jean Stewart ............. A B C D F Jeff B. Herron ................ A B C D F Brian Whitney ................ A B C D F 8th Judicial District David B. Woods ............ A B C D F Jolene C. Blair ............... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District Terence Gilmore ........... A B C D F Leslie J. Gerbracht ........ A B C D F Daniel J. Kaup ............... A B C D F 4th Judicial District Gregory M. Lammons ... A B C D F David A. Gilbert ............. A B C D F Stephen J. Schapanski . A B C D F Deborah J. Grohs .......... A B C D F 9th Judicial District Barney Iuppa ................. A B C D F Gail Nichols ................... A B C D F 1 ## Page 43 10th Judicial District 20th Judicial District No Grade No Grade Thomas B. Flesher ........ A B C D F Lael E. Montgomery ...... A B C D F Jill S. Mattoon ................ A B C D F 21st Judicial District Larry C. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Dick Gurley ................... A B C D F 11th Judicial District Valerie J. Robison ......... A B C D F Stephen A. Groome ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Sharon L. Hansen ......... A B C D F Martin A. Gonzales ........ A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F 13th Judicial District (None) 14th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a sheet Mary C. Hoak ................ A B C D F for comments you would like to make about any 15th Judicial District of these district Judges. Stanley A. Brinkley ........ A B C D F 16th Judicial District Michael A. Schiferl ........ A B C D F Thank You. 17th Judicial District John T. Bryan ................ A B C D F C. Scott Crabtree .......... A B C D F Katherine R. Delgado .... A B C D F Thomas R. Ensor .......... A B C D F F. Michael Goodbee ...... A B C D F Patrick T. Murphy .......... A B C D F C. Vincent Phelps, Jr. .... A B C D F Jill-Ellyn Straus .............. A B C D F 18th Judicial District Angela Arkin .................. A B C D F Richard B. Caschette .... A B C D F Timothy L. Fasing .......... A B C D F Jeffrey K. Holmes .......... A B C D F Carlos Armando Samour,Jr. A B C D F William B. Sylvester ...... A B C D F Elizabeth Ann Weishaupl A B C D F 19th Judicial District Julie C. Hoskins ............ A B C D F Daniel Maus .................. A B C D F Thomas J. Quammen .... A B C D F 2 ## Page 44 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 45 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 4
• 2006 cycle
  • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee BBaarrnneeyy IIuuppppaa 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable Barney Iuppa P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80901 Dear Judge Iuppa: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable Barney Iuppa Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 2.8 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.1 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.0 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.3 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 2.3 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 2.9 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Barney Iuppa County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.1 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.6 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.3 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.1 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.3 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 2.2 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.1 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.2 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.3 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 2.8 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Barney Iuppa County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.0 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 2.9 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 2.8 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 2.1 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 2.6 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.1 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.3 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.1 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 2.9 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.1 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.3 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.3 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.5 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 3.1 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.3 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 2.3 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 2.6 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 1.5 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 1.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 1.8 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 2.4 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 2.4 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 2.2 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 2.5 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.0 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.4 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 2.4 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 2.9 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.1 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 2.8 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 2.8 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.1 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 2.8 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Iuppa is toward the defense or prosecution? Barney Iuppa 1.3 County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Iuppa's sentences? Barney Iuppa 1.2 County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 70% 60% 50% 41% 40% 38% 30% 28% 25% 24% 22% 20% 14%14% 13%13% 9% 10% 7% 6% 5%5% 5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4%4% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Iuppa Including Undecided C o u n t y J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 54% 56% B 33% 21% 21% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 12% 19% 17% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 53% 56% B 27% 29% 28% C 15% 11% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 27% 52% 51% B 48% 30% 29% C 21% 10% 11% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 42% 54% 53% B 45% 31% 31% C 9% 9% 9% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 7% 28% 27% B 11% 17% 18% C 11% 5% 7% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 7% 1% 1% No Grade 59% 47% 43% Average 2.2 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade C B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 42% 61% 63% B 33% 26% 25% C 9% 8% 7% D 9% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 21% 43% 44% B 39% 25% 25% C 9% 7% 8% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 30% 24% 19% Average 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 48% 48% B 34% 21% 21% C 9% 4% 5% D 3% 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 16% 26% 24% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 24% 52% 50% B 36% 29% 30% C 21% 8% 9% D 9% 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 9% 8% 6% Average 2.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 30% 50% 53% B 42% 28% 27% C 12% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 6% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 5% 4% Average 2.9 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 36% 54% 57% B 21% 26% 25% C 21% 10% 9% D 12% 4% 4% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average 2.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 8% 20% 28% B 13% 15% C 20% 6% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 64% 58% 48% Average 2.1 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade C B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 18% 30% 29% B 21% 19% 20% C 18% 9% 9% D 6% 4% 4% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 30% 34% 33% Average 2.6 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 31% 50% 52% B 47% 31% 30% C 13% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 3% Average 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 55% 58% B 39% 29% 27% C 12% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 4% 3% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 30% 53% 57% B 45% 29% 27% C 18% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 3% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 23% 38% 33% B 39% 23% 20% C 3% 6% 6% D 10% 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 23% 29% 37% Average 2.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 51% 53% B 33% 22% 22% C 12% 9% 8% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 12% 12% Average 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 42% 52% 54% B 36% 23% 22% C 6% 7% 7% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 12% 14% 14% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 72% 73% B 39% 21% 20% C 3% 5% 4% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 42% 71% 71% B 33% 20% 20% C 15% 6% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.1 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 73% 74% B 36% 21% 20% C 12% 5% 4% D 3% 1% 1% Fail No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.3 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 22% 66% 69% B 41% 22% 20% C 16% 7% 6% D 19% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 2.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 12% 69% 70% B 9% 17% 17% C 27% 6% 6% D 18% 3% 3% Fail 33% 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 1.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade D+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 6% 58% 59% B 21% 23% 22% C 27% 8% 9% D 21% 5% 5% Fail 24% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 1.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade D+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 12% 66% 69% B 24% 20% 18% C 21% 6% 6% D 15% 3% 3% Fail 27% 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 1.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 30% 62% 63% B 24% 20% 19% C 9% 9% 8% D 24% 5% 5% Fail 9% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 2.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 24% 63% 64% B 30% 22% 21% C 9% 8% 7% D 24% 3% 3% Fail 9% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 2.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 18% 62% 63% B 30% 20% 19% C 18% 8% 8% D 21% 4% 4% Fail 12% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade C B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 18% 68% 69% B 42% 20% 19% C 15% 7% 6% D 21% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 27% 58% 59% B 42% 24% 23% C 15% 8% 8% D 3% 3% 4% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 4% 4% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 60% 63% B 30% 16% 15% C 4% 3% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 3% 2% 1% No Grade 15% 16% 16% Average 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 15% 56% 52% B 33% 15% 13% C 15% 4% 4% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 15% 2% 1% No Grade 18% 21% 28% Average 2.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 48% 52% B 24% 25% 23% C 18% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 15% 14% 12% Average 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 24% 51% 53% B 42% 28% 27% C 18% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 6% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 5% 4% Average 2.8 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 27% 49% 53% B 30% 28% 26% C 18% 9% 9% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 9% 7% Average 2.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 30% 50% 53% B 36% 22% 21% C 12% 7% 7% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 15% 17% 15% Average 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 21% 39% 41% B 21% 16% 16% C 9% 5% 5% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 6% 1% 1% No Grade 39% 38% 36% Average 2.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Iuppa is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 10% 5% 5% 3 20% 7% 7% 2 13% 12% 11% 1 13% 19% 18% 40% 47% 47% -1 3% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 3% 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 1.3 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Iuppa are? Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 14% 3% 4% 3 11% 5% 5% 2 18% 8% 9% 1 4% 15% 15% 46% 58% 55% -1 4% 2% 3% -2 4% 2% 3% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average 1.2 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 41% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 24% 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 28% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 7% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.5 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.4 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.4 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Barney Iuppa County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.4 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.5 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.4 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 3.4 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 3.2 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.4 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.4 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.4 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 3.3 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 3.4 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.6 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.6 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.6 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 3.7 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 3.6 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 3.7 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.6 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 3.3 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 3.4 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Barney Iuppa County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Iuppa is toward the defense or prosecution? Barney Iuppa 0.3 County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Iuppa's sentences? Barney Iuppa 0.3 County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 82% 81% 79% 80% 75% 72%72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 12% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6%6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3%3% 3%3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Iuppa S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 65% 69% B 20% 23% 20% C 7% 7% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 69% 72% B 15% 18% 17% C 8% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 66% 70% B 18% 19% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 5% 4% 3% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 62% 66% B 20% 20% 18% C 6% 7% 6% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 7% 5% 5% No Grade 5% 2% 2% Average 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 68% 71% B 15% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 66% 69% B 15% 17% 16% C 5% 6% 5% D 7% 4% 3% Fail 3% 5% 4% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 51% 49% B 12% 13% 11% C 4% 5% 4% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 26% 25% 30% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 64% 65% 68% B 18% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 5% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 70% 73% B 13% 18% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 71% 74% B 18% 19% 18% C 7% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 73% 75% B 14% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 2% 1% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 65% 52% 55% B 20% 26% 26% C 8% 11% 10% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 69% 72% B 20% 20% 18% C 3% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 56% 58% B 22% 20% 19% C 7% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 13% 12% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 63% 67% B 20% 19% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 9% 7% 7% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 59% 61% B 23% 23% 23% C 6% 9% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 59% 59% 62% B 15% 19% 18% C 8% 7% 6% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 10% 7% 7% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 55% 58% B 11% 16% 14% C 6% 5% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 16% 17% 17% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 62% 60% 64% B 17% 18% 16% C 6% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 3% 5% 4% No Grade 9% 8% 8% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Iuppa is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 5% 3% 2% 4 1% 2% 1% 3 4% 3% 2% 2 1% 3% 3% 1 1% 6% 5% 80% 75% 78% -1 4% 3% 3% -2 2% 2% 2% -3 1% 1% 1% -4 1% 1% 1% -5 2% 2% Average 0.3 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Iuppa are? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 8% 4% 3% 4 1% 2% 2% 3 2% 2% 2% 2 1% 3% 3% 1 2% 4% 4% 77% 69% 71% -1 3% 5% 5% -2 3% 4% 4% -3 1% 2% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 2% 2% Average 0.3 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 Barney Iuppa Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 81% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 8% 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 91 Barney Iuppa Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 4 3 1 0 0 75.0% Attorney For Defendant 46 28 13 5 0 68.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 7 2 5 0 0 28.6% Sub Total: 57 33 19 5 0 63.5% Defendant 304 29 142 133 0 17.0% Plaintiff 73 7 43 23 0 14.0% Law Enforcement 99 31 30 38 0 50.8% Employee 12 3 3 6 0 50.0% Juror 102 64 31 7 0 67.4% Other 5 1 2 2 0 33.3% Parole Officers 6 3 2 1 0 60.0% Sub Total: 601 138 253 210 0 35.3% Grand Total: 658 171 272 215 0 38.6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ 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 not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? b. Maintaining appropriate control over _ proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Being prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ b. Willing to make decision without regard to _ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
• 2002 cycle
  • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Barney Iuppa P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80901-2980 Dear Judge Iuppa: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. · Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. · Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arapahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Barney Iuppa Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 12% 64% 65% B 24% 22% 21% C 32% 7% 7% D 16% 3% 3% Fail 16% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 2.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 20% 64% 61% B 24% 20% 22% C 20% 7% 8% D 16% 4% 4% Fail 16% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 2% 3% Average Grade 2.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 12% 55% 48% B 12% 17% 14% C 32% 8% 6% D 16% 2% 2% Fail 16% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 16% 29% Average Grade 1.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 67% 63% B 16% 15% 12% C 16% 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 4% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.5 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 69% 66% B 16% 16% 14% C 20% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 4% 8% 12% Average Grade 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 70% 66% B 16% 14% 13% C 16% 5% 4% D 4% 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 4% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.4 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 66% 65% B 24% 15% 13% C 12% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 60% 60% B 8% 18% 17% C 20% 9% 8% D 8% 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 8% 4% 5% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 58% 51% B 16% 14% 11% C 16% 6% 4% D 12% 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 16% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 56% 59% B 8% 15% 12% C 12% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 16% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 20% 29% 37% B 12% 22% 23% C 20% 8% 9% D 8% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 40% 37% 27% Average Grade 2.7 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 32% 51% 54% B 32% 30% 28% C 24% 10% 9% D 8% 4% 4% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 28% 53% 54% B 36% 27% 26% C 32% 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 32% 62% 64% B 16% 21% 21% C 12% 7% 7% D 32% 5% 4% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 2.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 28% 57% 57% B 16% 22% 22% C 16% 9% 8% D 24% 5% 5% Fail 16% 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 2.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 47% 46% B 24% 27% 27% C 12% 11% 11% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 12% 3% 4% No Grade 4% 8% 8% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 51% 54% B 24% 27% 28% C 12% 11% 9% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 53% 54% B 16% 24% 25% C 12% 11% 10% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 56% 58% B 16% 25% 23% C 8% 8% 7% D 12% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 48% 49% B 12% 18% 18% C 20% 7% 7% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 8% 3% 3% No Grade 12% 21% 21% Average Grade 2.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 24% 35% 33% B 12% 14% 13% C 4% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 52% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 47% 53% B 20% 28% 25% C 12% 12% 9% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 48% 49% B 12% 24% 25% C 20% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 12% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 36% 40% 44% B 24% 30% 29% C 8% 13% 12% D 20% 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 8% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.7 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 49% 50% B 8% 21% 20% C 4% 9% 8% D 20% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 12% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.1 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Barney Iuppa Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 60% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 28% 11% 11% No opinion 12% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 65% 67% B 18% 20% 19% C 6% 7% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 49% 47% B 14% 16% 15% C 5% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 31% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 63% 65% B 13% 15% 14% C 7% 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 65% 67% B 16% 16% 16% C 5% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 64% 67% B 14% 16% 16% C 5% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 66% B 13% 16% 15% C 7% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 11% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 63% 65% B 17% 16% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 9% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 45% 43% B 13% 13% 12% C 5% 5% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 41% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 60% 63% B 19% 16% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 68% 70% B 21% 20% 19% C 4% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 67% 69% B 18% 19% 18% C 7% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 69% 72% B 20% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 64% 66% B 15% 18% 17% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 9% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 55% 56% B 18% 23% 22% C 9% 9% 8% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 12% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 55% 57% B 17% 23% 23% C 9% 9% 9% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 7% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 61% 64% B 16% 19% 18% C 5% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 60% 62% B 14% 17% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 16% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 64% 67% B 17% 17% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 60% 62% B 17% 19% 18% C 4% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 15% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Iuppa on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 53% 55% B 13% 15% 14% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 29% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Barney Iuppa Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Iuppa be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Iuppa Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 83% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 5% 9% 8% No opinion 12% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Barney Iuppa Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 10 6 4 60.0% Attorney For Defendant 25 18 4 3 81.8% Attorney for Plaintiff 3 1 2 33.3% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 38 25 10 3 71.4% Law Enforcement 64 20 28 5 11 41.7% Social Services Caseworker Employee 11 5 3 3 62.5% Defendant 145 20 76 45 4 20.8% Plaintiff 2 2 100.0% Juror 309 144 117 32 16 55.2% Victim 22 3 10 8 1 23.1% Other 49 2 25 15 7 7.4% Sub Total: 602 196 259 105 42 43.1% Total: 640 221 269 108 42 45.1% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 4

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

Sources

• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1998 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026