← All judges

Mary Lynne James

Trial Court · Moffat · Moffat

Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Moffat · Moffat
    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 Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of six to four that Judge Mary Lynne James BE RETAINED. Judge James attended the University of Nebraska where she received a B.A. degree in German and Russian. Judge James received her law degree from the University of Nebraska Law School. She graduated from law school "with distinction" and Order of the Coif. After law school Judge James was a clerk for a Justice of the Nebraska Supreme Court. Judge James had a private practice in Craig, Colorado from 1997 to 1984. She was appointed as a County Court Judge in October 1984. Judge James is a member of the State Judicial Probation Advisory Committee, a 10-year member of the Habitat Partnership Committee in Moffat County and is active in bringing legal education to all levels of public school. Judge James also conducts settlement conferences for district court civil cases. The Commission personally interviewed Judge James and considered the results of a survey, which included verbatim comments, conducted by an independent agency to evaluate the performance of the judges. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge James. The survey responses raised concerns for the Commission in two areas. One area of concern was the grade given to Judge James on providing written communications in a clear, thorough and well-reasoned manner. Twenty-three percent of attorneys surveyed gave Judge James a "C" in this category, whereas the statewide average for county judges receiving a "C" grade from attorneys was 8%. The second concern was the grade given to Judge James on ruling on motions in a timely manner. Twenty-three percent of attorneys surveyed gave Judge James a grade of "D" or "F", compared with 5% for all county judges statewide receiving a "D" or "F" grade. Twenty-three percent of attorneys and 59% of non-attorneys gave Judge James an "A" for ruling on motions in a timely manner. Judge James received an overall grade of a "C" from attorneys for ruling on motions in a timely manner, which was below the statewide average grade of a "B+". Concerns were raised about Judge James’ judicial temperament with regard to her being patient, dignified and courteous to those she deals with in her official capacity. Survey results indicated Judge James fell below the statewide average on being prepared for all court matters. Judge James was also concerned with the results and stated to the Commission she did not know where these responses might be coming from. She also stated that she did not have any cases at the time of the interview that were waiting on a written decision from her. Judge James stated she rules from the bench and written decisions are not very often required. Concerns were raised about Judge James’ judicial temperament with regard to her being patient, dignified and courteous to those she deals with in her official capacity. She admits there are days when she can be short and firm with people in her court. Survey results indicated Judge James fell below the statewide average on being prepared for all court matters. Of the attorneys surveyed, 77% recommended Judge James be retained and 77% of the non-attorneys surveyed recommended retention. The Commission was impressed with Judge James’ public service commitment. The Commission feels Judge James should be retained.
  • 1998 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Moffat · Moffat
    Meets Standards(Do Not Retain)
    Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Fourteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Mary Lynne James BE RETAINED. Judge James was appointed Judge to the Moffat County Court in 1984. Judge James currently hears all County Court cases, which include civil, criminal traffic, misdemeanor, felony advisements, and probable cause cases. Courthouse personnel, litigants, jurors, and attorney questionnaires received by the Commission rate Judge James highly overall and she received high marks for compassion, integrity, judicial demeanor, and control of the courtroom. Questionnaires from law enforcement personnel received by the Commission were mixed as to Judge James' qualification for retention. Judge James is very energetic, prepared, knowledgeable and extremely patient, especially with parties who are not represented by lawyers. Judge James participates extensively in community activities including leadership in state and local bar associations. Those persons who responded to the questionnaires made the following recommendations concerning retention for Judge James: Attorneys Retain: 71.5% – Do Not Retain: 21.4% - No Opinion: 7.1%, Jurors Retain: 92.9% - No Opinion: 7.1%, Litigants Retain: 71.4% - Do Not Retain: 14.3% - No Opinion: 14.3%, Court/Probation Retain: 83.3% - No Opinion: 16.7%, Crime Victims Retain: 100.0%, Social Service Case Workers Retain: 100.0% and Law Enforcement Officers Retain: 15.2% - Do Not Retain: 75.7% - No Opinion: 9.1%.
  • 1994 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Moffat · Moffat
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Judge Mary Lynne James was appointed to the Moffat County Court in 1984. Judge James currently hears all county court cases, which include civil, criminal, traffic, misdemeanor, and felony advisements and probable cause cases. Courthouse personnel, and attorney questionnaires received by the commission rate Judge James highly overall and she received high marks for compassion, integrity, judicial demeanor and control of the courtroom. However, questionnaires from law enforcement personnel received by the commission were mixed in their review of Judge James. Judge James is very energetic, prepared, knowledgeable, and extremely patient, especially with parties who are not represented by lawyers. Judge James participates in the Sweet Adelines and is chair person for the Habitat Partnership Committee. The 14th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge James BE RETAINED.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Moffat · Moffat
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge James was admitted to the Colorado bar in 1977. She was in private practice in Craig from 1977 until she was appointed as Moffat County Court judge in 1984. James presides over traffic and misdemeanor criminal cases, including drunken driving cases, preliminary hearings in felony matters, small claims cases and civil cases involving claims up to $5,000. Jurors and litigants who were surveyed found that James conducted her courtroom in a fair, helpful and courteous manner.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Mary Lynne James Moffat County Courthouse 221 West Victory Way Craig, CO 81625 Dear Judge James: 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 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Mary Lynne James 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 Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge James on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 64% 65% B 31% 22% 21% C 8% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge James on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 64% 61% B 23% 20% 22% C 15% 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge James on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 55% 48% B 31% 17% 14% C 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 8% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 67% 63% B 8% 15% 12% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 23% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 77% 69% 66% B 23% 16% 14% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 8% 12% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 85% 70% 66% B 8% 14% 13% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 8% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 66% 65% B 23% 15% 13% C 8% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 13% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge James on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 60% 60% B 38% 18% 17% C 8% 9% 8% D 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge James on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 58% 51% B 15% 14% 11% C 8% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 8% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge James on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 56% 59% B 23% 15% 12% C 8% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 8% 3% 2% No Grade 15% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge James on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 15% 29% 37% B 54% 22% 23% C 23% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 8% 37% 27% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge James on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 51% 54% B 31% 30% 28% C 23% 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 8% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge James on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 53% 54% B 23% 27% 26% C 8% 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge James on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 62% 64% B 46% 21% 21% C 7% 7% D 8% 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge James on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 57% 57% B 31% 22% 22% C 15% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 8% 3% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge James on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 47% 46% B 46% 27% 27% C 15% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 8% 8% Average Grade 3.2 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge James on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 51% 54% B 46% 27% 28% C 8% 11% 9% D 8% 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge James on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 53% 54% B 23% 24% 25% C 15% 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 8% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge James on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 56% 58% B 15% 25% 23% C 31% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge James on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 48% 49% B 46% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 15% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge James on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 23% 35% 33% B 38% 14% 13% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 38% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge James on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 47% 53% B 38% 28% 25% C 23% 12% 9% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge James on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 23% 48% 49% B 38% 24% 25% C 8% 8% 8% D 15% 3% 3% Fail 8% 2% 3% No Grade 8% 16% 13% Average Grade 2.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge James on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 40% 44% B 38% 30% 29% C 15% 13% 12% D 8% 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 6% 6% Average Grade 3.1 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge James on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 49% 50% B 38% 21% 20% C 9% 8% D 8% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 8% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Mary Lynne James Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge James be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 77% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 23% 11% 11% No opinion 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge James on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 65% 67% B 21% 20% 19% C 12% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge James on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 49% 47% B 17% 16% 15% C 7% 6% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 6% 3% 2% No Grade 16% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 63% 65% B 15% 15% 14% C 6% 4% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 65% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 64% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 64% 66% B 16% 16% 15% C 8% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge James on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 63% 65% B 17% 16% 16% C 14% 6% 5% D 6% 3% 2% Fail 7% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge James on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 45% 43% B 12% 13% 12% C 7% 5% 4% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 6% 4% 3% No Grade 24% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge James on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 60% 63% B 20% 16% 16% C 10% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge James on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 68% 70% B 25% 20% 19% C 6% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge James on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 67% 69% B 27% 19% 18% C 6% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge James on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 69% 72% B 17% 17% 16% C 11% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge James on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 64% 66% B 19% 18% 17% C 8% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 7% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge James on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 55% 56% B 17% 23% 22% C 10% 9% 8% D 7% 2% 3% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge James on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 55% 57% B 23% 23% 23% C 10% 9% 9% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge James on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 61% 64% B 19% 19% 18% C 14% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge James on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 60% 62% B 18% 17% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 8% 3% 2% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge James on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 64% 67% B 19% 17% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge James on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 60% 62% B 16% 19% 18% C 11% 6% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge James on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 53% 55% B 16% 15% 14% C 9% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 12% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Mary Lynne James Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge James be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial James Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 77% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 17% 9% 8% No opinion 6% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 14 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 Mary Lynne James Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 3 2 1 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 12 8 4 66.7% Attorney for Plaintiff 6 3 2 1 60.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 21 13 6 2 68.4% Law Enforcement 2 1 1 50.0% Social Services Caseworker Employee 14 10 4 71.4% Defendant 159 40 82 34 3 32.8% Plaintiff 24 12 8 4 60.0% Juror 44 22 17 3 2 56.4% Victim 45 15 22 7 1 40.5% Other 35 9 21 3 2 30.0% Sub Total: 323 109 155 51 8 41.3% Total: 344 122 161 51 10 43.1% 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 14

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