Jerry N. Jones
Court of Appeals
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleCourt of AppealsCommission vote: 10 for · 0 against · 1 recusedMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 60.4% yes1,460,408 yes · 956,221 no50% needed to retainThe State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Jerry N. Jones of the Colorado Court of Appeals MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and public.Judge Jones has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals for eighteen years. His last retention evaluation was in 2016. The Commission finds that Judge Jones is fair and impartial, is thoroughly prepared for oral arguments, has a keen intellect, and writes clear legal opinions based upon the facts and law. In its evaluation, the Commission uses survey data with feedback from attorneys participating in oral arguments. Judge Jones actively participates in oral arguments. In current and prior surveys related to oral arguments, Judge Jones was both commended and criticized concerning his perceived demeanor during oral argument. Commissioners reviewed a large sample of recorded oral arguments in which Judge Jones was a member of the panel. At times his judicial temperament can appear adversarial and discourteous. We understand and share these concerns. During Judge Jones’ interview with the Commission, he expressed an openness to recommendations on how to improve his personal style. We believe one way in which Judge Jones might address some of the concerns about his temperament during oral arguments would be to briefly explain to counsel how a particular line of questioning will help inform his approach to the case. The Commission applauds Judge Jones’ leadership on several Colorado Supreme Court and bar association committees, and the Commission enjoyed hearing Judge Jones describe how meaningful his co-coaching of a high school mock trial team was for him.To conduct the evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Jones, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Judge Jones met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 75% answered yes and 25% answered no. Of the judges who responded to that question, 100% answered yes. A total of 20 attorneys and 27 judges responded to the survey.
- 2016 retention cycleCourt of AppealsMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 60.9% yes1,273,005 yes · 818,385 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report 2013 Interim Survey Report 2011 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 7 to 2, with one recusal, that Judge Jerry N. Jones BE RETAINED. Judge Jones was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2006. He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska and received his undergraduate degree at Arizona State University. He graduated from the University of Denver College of Law and clerked for Justice Lohr of the Colorado Supreme Court. He was a partner with the Denver law firm of Moye Giles LLP. During a portion of that time, he also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General, handling criminal and higher education matters. Immediately prior to his appointment to the Court, Judge Jones served as Chief of the United States Attorney's Appellate Division. He was a member of the Second Judicial District Performance Commission, serving for five years as Chair. He has been a member of the Colorado Bar Association’s Amicus Committee and the Faculty of Federal Advocates. Currently he serves on the Colorado Supreme Court’s Civil Rules, Judicial Education, and Judicial Conference Planning committees; he chairs the Public Access Committee. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Jones, read opinions that he authored, observed him in court, reviewed his self-evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding his performance. Included in the survey were responses to the question “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey 74% recommended to retain, 15% to not retain and 11% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of judges completing the survey 97% recommended to retain and 3% to not retain. Attorney survey responses indicated that Judge Jones’ performance was strong in the areas of being prepared for oral argument and also in the clarity of his written opinions. Both attorneys and judges suggested strength in the areas of quality and timeliness of his written opinions. Based upon its review of Judge Jones’ written opinions, the Commission found them to be generally well written, but the quality of his writing was inconsistent. Attorneys noted relative weakness in the areas of fairness and impartiality. Attorneys also noted weakness in the areas of being courteous toward attorneys and allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. The Commission concluded, based upon courtroom observation, that he was courteous to some attorneys, and not courteous to others, making his demeanor inconsistent. The Commission raised these areas of concern with Judge Jones during his interview. He was initially dismissive, but the issues were thoroughly discussed at a follow-up interview at Judge Jones’ request. The Commission recommends that Judge Jones undertake additional training to be more effective both as a listener and a questioner during oral arguments. The Commission also urges Judge Jones to continue his efforts to address these concerns.
- 2008 retention cycleCourt of AppealsMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 72.0% yes1,241,358 yes · 481,530 no50% needed to retainReports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Jerry N. Jones BE RETAINED. Judge Jones was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2006. He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska, and received his undergraduate education at Arizona State University. He graduated from the University of Denver College of Law, where he was the Tenth Circuit Survey Editor of the Denver University Law Review. After receiving his law degree, he clerked for Associate Justice George E. Lohr of the Colorado Supreme Court. For seven years he was a member of Second Judicial District Performance Commission, serving for five years as its chair. He has also been a member of the Colorado Bar Association’s Amicus Committee and the Faculty of Federal Advocates. Immediately prior to his appointment to the Court, Judge Jones served as Chief of the United States Attorney's Appellate Division (2004-2006). Before that, he was with the Denver law firm of Moye Giles LLP for 17 years, first as an associate and later as a partner. During a portion of that time, he also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General, handling criminal and higher education matters. Judge Jones efficiently prepares and issues opinions, occasionally taking additional cases to assist other judges. Attorneys who responded to survey questions rated Judge Jones somewhat above the survey average for refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided, and slightly below the average for making decisions without regard to possible criticism, while judges rated him as comparable in all respects to other appellate judges. Attorneys commented that he is fair and well-prepared, while judges complimented both his analytical ability and his efficiency. While Judge Jones strives to convey to litigants that each case receives his full attention and they have received a fair hearing, there is a perception that at times he can be too short with attorneys during argument, and he is working on being more patient. The Commission also reviewed various opinions that Judge Jones wrote. His opinions were particularly well-written; they tended to be carefully reasoned and supported by applicable statutes and case precedents. Overall, 95% of attorneys surveyed and 100% of judges surveyed supported Judge Jones’ retention, with 64% of attorneys and 83% of judges strongly recommending that he be retained in office.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jerry N. Jones 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . .10 Methodology and How to Read Results . .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jones, 43 attorneys and judges completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 43 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.6 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Jones All Appellate Judges All Appellate Judge Jones Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 95% 90% 84% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 11% 5% 6% 5% 5% 3% 2% 0% Judge Jones All Appellate Judges Judge Jones All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Judge Judge Appellate Appellate Jones Jones Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 84% 79% 90% 95% standards No, does not meet 11% 15% 5% 3% performance standards No opinion 5% 6% 5% 2% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.7 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.5 Judge Jones All Appellate Judges All Judge Appellate Jones Judges General (Attorneys) 3.4 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.5 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 3.5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 90 26% 22% 20 Judges 23 9% - 23 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Overall 3.4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Judge Jones Overall Number of Responses Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side 3.3 3.4 19 of the case Allowing parties to present their 3.4 3.5 18 arguments and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of 3.4 3.6 17 race, sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.0 3.5 18 Not engaging in ex parte 4.0 3.9 9 communications Being prepared for oral argument 3.8 3.6 17 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Overall 3.5 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Appellate Judges Number of Judge Jones Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 3.4 19 Writing opinions that adequately explain 3.5 3.3 19 the basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.9 3.5 16 Making decisions without regard to 3.6 3.5 18 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon 3.2 3.1 19 the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.6 3.3 16 not be decided 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Number of Judge Jones Overall Judges Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.8 3.6 23 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.7 3.6 23 Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.9 3.7 19 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 3.7 20 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.7 3.6 23 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.8 3.6 21 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.7 3.8 23 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic 3.7 3.8 20 status 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 43 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 43 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total 7,151 surveys were completed with an additional 10,495 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%.In addition to email, attorney could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23th a nd January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emails, attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 10 ## Page 11 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite 3,427 1,864 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 11 ## Page 12 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2022. A ll 227 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2022. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 37 survey invitations sent. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 12rd, 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 20th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2 023. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 16th , 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 23rd. T he survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2023. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 351 90 0 20 22% Judges 264 23 0 23 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Ju dicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 14 - 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Je rry N. Jones 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report – Attorney Survey . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys). . 7 Detailed Report – Judge Survey . . 8 General Evaluation Questions (Judges). . 8 Appellate Writing (Judges) . . 8 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 9 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 9 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Appellate Judges. . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jones, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 820 20 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 20 Judges 260 27 Total N/A 47 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Jones Overall Judge Jones Overall Number of Responses Overall Grade 3.5 47 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 75% 100% 15 26 standards No, does not meet performance 25% 0% 5 0 standards No opinion 0% 0% 0 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.8 General 3.6 3.1 Writing 3.8 Score Attorneys Score Judges Score Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges General 2.8 3.6 20 26 Writing 3.1 3.8 19 26 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report – At torney Survey General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) Judge Jones Overall Number of Responses Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 2.8 20 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 2.8 20 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) Number of Judge Jones Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.2 18 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.2 18 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.6 18 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.3 17 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 2.9 18 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 2.6 19 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report – Ju dge Survey General Evaluation Questions (Judges) Judge Jones Overall Number of Responses Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.7 26 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.7 20 Appellate Writing (Judges) Number of Judge Jones Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.8 26 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.8 26 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.8 25 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.8 24 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.7 26 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.8 25 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 8 ## Page 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 47 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 47 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 9 ## Page 10 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Invitation Method Invitations Sent Aspects of Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 2497 793 select) Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 10 ## Page 11 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 11 ## Page 12 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 12 ## Page 13 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 13 ## Page 14 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Ap pellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates All 223 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves. A total of 71 judges responded and completed 992 evaluations. B. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 16th, 2024 and reminders were sent on January 26th a nd January 31st, 2 024. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 4th, 2 024. C. Questions Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. D. Analysis and Reporting Judges were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 15 ## Page 16 The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 16
- 2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJeerrrryy NN.. JJoonneess 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Jerry N. Jones Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Jones: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides a copy of the questionnaire that was used for attorneys. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Attorneys assigned Judge Jerry N. Jones an overall average grade of 3.16. Judge Jones Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Jones Average Sample Year Score Size 2005 2006 3.48 15 2007 3.43 33 2008 3.24 25 2009 3.11 43 2010 2.85 55 2012 3.18 73 All Years 3.16 244 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJeeryy NN.. JJoonneess ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 224)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Jerry N. Jones Judge Jones All COA Judges* Sample Size = 244 A B C D Fail DK/NA Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 45% 21% 12% 3% 11% 8% 2.94 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 47% 20% 8% 4% 6% 15% 3.14 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 51% 15% 5% 2% 4% 23% 3.40 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 48% 16% 7% 7% 6% 16% 3.11 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 46% 6% 2% 0% 1% 45% 3.73 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 51% 16% 9% 2% 4% 19% 3.32 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.27 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 46% 25% 14% 4% 3% 7% 3.14 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 24% 13% 8% 4% 6% 3.02 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 51% 24% 11% 2% 2% 9% 3.32 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 43% 18% 9% 6% 7% 17% 3.01 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 43% 20% 12% 8% 13% 3% 2.74 2.83 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 41% 19% 11% 3% 8% 18% 2.99 3.07 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.04 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.16 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Percentage Judge Jerry N. Jones Judge Jones All COA Judges* How strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 34% 43% Recommend retain 37% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 16% 13% Recommend not retain 4% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 9% Total Retain 71% 69% Neither 16% 13% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 34% 42% Recommend retain 37% 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 16% 13% Recommend not retain 4% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 71% 68% Neither 16% 13% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Jerry N. Jones Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges Average Grades 3.16 Overall average grade 3.25 3.27 Question 2 average grade 3.42 2.94 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.14 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.14 answer questions. 3.35 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.40 economic status. 3.48 3.11 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.42 3.73 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.77 3.32 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.36 3.04 Question 3 average grade 3.08 3.14 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.11 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.02 basis of the Court's decision. 3.02 3.32 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.29 3.01 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.18 2.74 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.83 2.99 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.07 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Jones All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 4 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 8 Judge Jerry N. Jones Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 34% Strongly recommend retain 43% 37% Somewhat recommend retain 26% Excluding DK Respondents 16% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Judge Jones All COA Judges* Total Retain 71% 69% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Neither 16% 13% 8% Total Not Retain 12% 17% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 34% Strongly recommend retain 42% 37% Somewhat recommend retain 26% 16% Neither retain nor not retain 13% Including DK Respondents 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Judge Jones All COA Judges* 8% Total Retain 71% 68% Neither 16% 13% 8% Total Not Retain 12% 17% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Jones All Court of Appeals Judges * Includes only the Court of Appeals Judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 5 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 7 ## Page 11 Respondents were also asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 8 ## Page 12 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2012, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 18.2% for Judge Jones and 17.7% for all Court of Appeals judges. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. Looking at only the 2012 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Jones is 21.5% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges is 21.7%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and the cooperation rate for Judge Jones. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 to 2012. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Jones 1487 1090 148 244 18.2% All Court of 13724 10173 1333 2199 17.7% Appeals Judges* * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Sample Size = 2199 Grade (0.0 to A B C D Fail DK/NA 4.0 scale) Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 54% 18% 10% 6% 7% 6% 3.14 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 17% 8% 4% 3% 15% 3.35 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 57% 10% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.48 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 7% 4% 3% 14% 3.42 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 49% 4% 2% 0% 1% 44% 3.77 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 15% 8% 3% 3% 20% 3.36 Question 2 Average Grade 3.42 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 46% 25% 13% 6% 4% 6% 3.11 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 45% 24% 12% 8% 5% 6% 3.02 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 24% 12% 3% 2% 10% 3.29 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 8% 5% 4% 19% 3.18 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 47% 18% 12% 11% 10% 2% 2.83 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 10% 5% 6% 14% 3.07 Question 3 Average Grade 3.08 Overall Average Grade: 3.25 * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Court of Appeals Judges All Court of Appeals Judges* Average Grade (0.0 to 4.0 scale) How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 69% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 42% Recommend retain 26% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 13% Recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 68% Neither 13% Total Not Retain 17% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the Court of Appeals judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 16 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 17 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 - 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Jerry N. Jones 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Respondent Characteristics . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 7 General Evaluation . 8 Writing .10 Survey of District and Appellate Judges .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Retention .14 Individual Questions .15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jerry N. Jones, 236 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 123 agreed they had worked with Judge Jones enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 123 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F for fail scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Combined 3.49 Attorneys 3.3 District and Appellate Judges 3.6 Table 1 Judge Jerry N. Jones Overall Scores District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.49 3.3 3.6 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 88% Attorneys 74% District & Appellate Judges 97% Table 2 Judge Jerry N. Jones Overall Retention Scores District & Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges % Recommending 88% 74% 97% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Jerry N. Jones Overall Category Scores District and Area Attorneys Appellate Judges General 3.21 3.60 Writing 3.38 N/A 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 3 ## Page 6 Respondent Characteristics Table 4: Response Rates % Without Undeliverable or Group Total Sent Complete Response Rate sufficient Not Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 298 11 46 40% 60% District and Appellate 211 0 77 58% 37% Judges *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 114 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 46 agreed they had worked with Judge Jones enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 46 responses. The survey results are divided into two sections: General Evaluation and Writing. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “Appellate Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,482 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. A total of 161 invitations were sent to 27 staff attorneys working in the appellate courts. Of these, 81 surveys were completed and an additional 11 indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 57% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 88%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015 and closed on February 22nd 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 5 ## Page 8 Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed with reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were e-mailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 6 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Those that indicated that they were familiar with the Judge’s written opinions were asked to rate the judge in an additional six areas related to the Judge’s writing skills. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge or justice be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. d. Analysis: Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge or justice’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 6 ## Page 9 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Jerry N. Jones Total Retain 74% Neither 11% Total Not Retain 15% Figure 3 100% 80% 63% 59% 60% 40% 17% 20% 11% 11% 11% 9% 9% 6% 4% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Jones All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 7 ## Page 10 General Evaluation Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Jones on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.43 Appellate General Overall Average 3.21 3.55 Being prepared for oral argument 3.7 3.94 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.86 3.47 Being courteous toward attorneys 2.85 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.67 economic status 3.57 Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.48 questions 3.13 3.22 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 2.91 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Jones 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 8 ## Page 11 Table 6 Appellate General Judge Jerry N. Jones All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 46 Average Judges Being fair and impartial toward 46% 26% 13% 4% 11% -- 2.91 3.22 each side of the case Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 41% 17% 22% 4% -- 15% 3.13 3.48 questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 57% 13% 11% -- -- 20% 3.57 3.67 economic status Being courteous toward 33% 28% 11% 11% 4% 13% 2.85 3.47 attorneys Not engaging in ex parte 41% 7% -- -- -- 52% 3.86 3.94 communications Being prepared for oral 67% 17% -- -- 2% 13% 3.7 3.55 argument Appellate General Overall Average 3.21 3.43 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 9 ## Page 12 Writing Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Jones on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.18 Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.38 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.13 decided 3.33 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 2.98 facts 3.14 3.39 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.47 3.45 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.67 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.16 Court's decision 3.36 3.22 Writing opinions that are clear 3.48 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Jones 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 10 ## Page 13 Table 7 Appellate Writing Judge Jerry N. Jones All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 42 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 64% 21% 12% 2% -- -- 3.48 3.22 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 62% 24% 7% 2% 5% -- 3.36 3.16 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 64% 26% 2% -- -- 7% 3.67 3.45 Making decisions without regard to 62% 10% 10% 2% 2% 14% 3.47 3.39 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 60% 14% 14% 5% 7% -- 3.14 2.98 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues 50% 21% 10% 2% 2% 14% 3.33 3.13 that need not be decided Appellate Writing Overall Average 3.38 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 11 ## Page 14 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 122 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 77 agreed they had worked with Judge Jones enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 77 responses. a. Response rates For the inter-appellate evaluation, invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Judges and justices not standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate all their appellate peers standing for retention. Appellate Judges and Justices standing for retention in 2016 were invited to evaluate their fellow judges up for retention, but not themselves. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. District judges were invited to evaluate their peers standing for retention on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court via email. For this survey all district judges were sent invitations to evaluate the 11 Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices standing for retention. A total of 1,983 survey invitations were sent and 613 responded and 611 completed the survey. The overall response rate was 31% and the completion rate was 99%. b. Methodology Both District Judges and fellow members of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals were asked to evaluate the appellate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices standing for retention by their peers in the appellate courts began with an email invitation sent on January 6th. A reminder email was sent on January 13th to those who had not yet responded. The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by their peers in the district courts began with an email invitation sent on November 10th. A reminder email was sent on November 23rd to those who had not yet responded. c. Questions Both groups of judges providing appellate evaluations answered the same questions. The survey consisted of a series of 9 questions where the respondent was asked to rate the judges performance with an A through F letter grade. They were then asked how strongly they do or do not recommend the judge or justice for retention and given an opportunity to provide any written comments. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 12 ## Page 15 d. Analysis Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 13 ## Page 16 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 8 Judge Jerry N. Jones Total Retain 97% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 3% Figure 6 100% 78% 80% 72% 60% 40% 25% 20% 20% 2% 1% 3% 0% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Jones All Appellate Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 14 ## Page 17 Individual Questions Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following appellate judges on each aspect by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 7 Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.69 3.6 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.92 3.85 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or 3.84 economic status 3.76 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.74 3.58 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.53 decided 3.57 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.61 facts 3.5 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.77 3.7 Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.64 3.66 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.59 Court's decision 3.55 Writing opinions that are clear 3.58 3.53 0 1 2 3 4 All Appellate Judges Judge Jones 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 15 ## Page 18 Table 9 Appellate Individual Questions Judge Jerry N. Jones All Overall A B C D Fail DK/NA Appellate Number of Responses: 77 Average Judges Writing opinions that are clear 67% 18% 9% 3% -- 3% 3.53 3.58 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 69% 16% 9% 3% -- 3% 3.55 3.59 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 70% 6% 12% -- -- 12% 3.66 3.64 Making decisions without regard to 73% 9% 9% -- -- 9% 3.7 3.77 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based 70% 12% 9% 6% -- 3% 3.5 3.61 upon the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that 67% 12% 9% 3% -- 9% 3.57 3.53 need not be decided Being fair and impartial toward each 64% 21% 9% -- -- 6% 3.58 3.74 side of the case Treating parties equally regardless of 73% 9% 6% -- -- 12% 3.76 3.84 race, sex, or economic status Not engaging in ex parte 78% -- -- -- 3% 19% 3.85 3.92 communications Appellate Judge Overall Average 3.6 3.69 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jerry N. Jones 16
- 2008 cycle
- 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJeerrrryy NN.. JJoonneess 2008 Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Jerry N. Jones Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO. 80203 Dear Judge Jones : Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of attorneys who have had cases with opinions authored or co-authored by those appellate judges and justices standing for retention in the next general election, and a second survey among all the State’s district judges, Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices. This report contains the results of these two surveys, and is divided into four main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the overall average grade you received on questions 2a through 2l, and on 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. • Survey of Judges Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1 through 10 on the Survey of Judges questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by the trail judges to each substantive question in the survey. The judges 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 Survey of Judges questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • 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. 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 Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4477)) ## Page 4 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey Overall Average Grade and Average by Question 3.4 OOvveerraallll aavveerraaggee ooff 22aa tthhrroouugghh 22ll 3.3 3.4 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.4 3.3 2b. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.3 2c. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.3 Court's decision. 3.2 3.4 2d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.4 2e. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 3.6 qquueessttiioonnss.. 33.55 3.2 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.5 3.1 2g. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.0 33.33 2h. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.1 2i. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.7 status. 3.7 3.7 2j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.7 3.8 2k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 3.6 2l. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.6 22..00 22..55 33..00 33..55 44..00 Average Grade Judge Jones 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Jones Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 5 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 80% 75% 70% 64% 62% 60% 53% 50% 40% 31% 30% 26% 20% 17% 16% 13% 11% 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Jones 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Jones Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 6 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 54% 59% B 22% 19% C 11% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% No Grade 9% 7% Average 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 7 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Writing opinions that are clear?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 45% 51% B 36% 28% C 11% 10% D 2% 6% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 6% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 8 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 45% 48% B 43% 28% C 6% 11% D 2% 6% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 4% Average 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 9 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 53% 50% B 28% 33% C 17% 8% D 0% 3% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 2% 6% Average 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 10 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 49% 50% B 19% 18% C 4% 3% D 0% 3% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 28% 24% Average 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 11 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 36% 51% B 21% 14% C 4% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% No Grade 32% 25% Average 3.2 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 12 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 45% 51% B 30% 21% C 15% 12% D 11% 7% Fail 0% 7% No Grade 0% 1% Average 3.1 3.0 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 13 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 40% 44% B 23% 21% C 9% 13% D 0% 3% Fail 2% 5% No Grade 26% 14% Average 3.3 3.1 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 14 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 57% 57% B 13% 9% C 4% 2% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 26% 29% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 15 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Being courteous toward attorneys?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 51% 58% B 19% 16% C 2% 3% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 28% 23% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 16 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2k. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 47% 48% B 9% 5% C 0% 1% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 45% 47% Average 3.8 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 17 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 2l. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Being prepared for oral argument?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 47% 51% B 13% 14% C 6% 4% D 0% 2% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 34% 29% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 18 Jerry N. Jones Attorney Survey 4. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained or not be retained in office? 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones Strongly Recommend 64% 75% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 31% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 6% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 0% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 19 DDiissttrriicctt JJuuddggee SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110077)) ## Page 20 JJeerrrryy NN. JJoonneess Survey of Judges Overall Average Grade and Average by Question 3.7 Overall average of 1 through 9 3.7 3.7 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 33.77 3.6 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.5 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of 3.7 the Court's decision. 33..66 3.7 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.6 3.8 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.8 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 3.6 facts. 3.6 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 3.7 decided. 3.7 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.9 economic status. 3.9 3.9 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Judge Jones 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Jones Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 21 JJeerrrryy NN. JJoonneess Survey of Judges Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 83% 82% 8800%% 70% 67% 61% 60% 50% 40% 30% 2266%% 20% 18% 17% 16% 13%13% 10% 2% 2% 00%% 00%% 00%% 00%% 00%% 00%% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Jones 2008 Appellate Judges except Judge Jones Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 22 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 1. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 50% 57% B 16% 14% C 1% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 34% 26% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 23 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 2. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Writing opinions that are clear?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 43% 47% B 24% 27% C 1% 5% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 32% 20% Average 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 24 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 3. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 46% 53% B 24% 22% C 0% 3% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 30% 20% Average 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 25 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 4. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 41% 37% B 16% 19% C 1% 3% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 43% 40% Average 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 26 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 5. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 57% 63% B 10% 11% C 1% 2% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 32% 25% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 27 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 6. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Making reasoned decision based upon the law and facts?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 48% 54% B 22% 22% C 2% 4% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 28% 19% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 28 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 7. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 48% 52% B 16% 18% C 1% 2% D 0% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 35% 27% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 29 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 8. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 71% 62% B 7% 6% C 1% 1% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 21% 31% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 30 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 9. How would you grade Judge Jones on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones A 47% 49% B 4% 4% C 0% 0% D 0% 0% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 50% 47% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 31 Jerry N. Jones Survey of Judges 1100.. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained or not be retained in office? 2008 Appellate Judge Judges except Jones Judge Jones Strongly Recommend 83% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 17% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 0% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 0% 0% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 32 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 33 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with names and addresses of attorneys who had a case decided by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, in which the decision had been authored or co-authored by one of the two Supreme Court justices or one of the six Court of Appeals judges standing for retention 2008. Talmey-Drake Research was also provided with the list of Colorado judges and justices. Two surveys were conducted, one among attorneys who had opinions authored or co-authored by one of the six Court of Appeals judges or two Supreme Court justices facing a retention vote in 2008, and a second survey of Colorado district and appellate judges and justices. Questionnaire: Copies of the two questionnaires used are provided at the end of this report. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in a number of different areas. These grades 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 for each survey as well as the response rate for your surveys. Overall Response Rate No Response Respondent Type Total Sent Response Undeliverable Other Completed Rate Attorneys 838 324 139 21 354 50.6% Judges 178 64 7 0 107 62.6% Response Rate for Judge Jones No Response Respondent Type Total Sent Response Undeliverable Other Completed Rate Attorneys 121 48 21 5 47 47.0% Judges 178 64 7 0 107 62.6% 1 ## Page 34 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Judge 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 the combined averages for the Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices about whom surveys in 2008 were conducted. 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 a comparative column of results showing the results for that question for the other appellate judges justices about whom surveys were conducted in 2008. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and judges. 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. 2 ## Page 35 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. 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. 3 ## Page 36 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 37 Additional Comments _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Appellate Questionnaire _ Evaluation of _ JUDGE FULL NAME _ _ _ 1. Which of the following types of cases have you _ appealed in which Judge [Last Name] _ authored or co-authored the decision? (Please circle all that apply.) _ _ Civil . 1 Criminal . 2 _ Domestic . 3 _ Juvenile . 4 Other . 5 _ _ ## Page 38 2. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F 3. Comments about Judge [Last Name]’s relating to any of your for fail, please grade the Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a responses to the previous questions? specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to _ grade Judge [Last Name], please circle the number indicating “Can’t Grade.” _ Can’t _ A B C D F Grade _ a. Being fair and impartial toward each _ side of the case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Writing opinions that are clear. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Writing opinions that adequately explain _ the basis of the Court’s decision. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Allowing parties to present their arguments 4. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how and answer questions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in f. Making decisions without regard to office, or not retained in office? possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 g. Making reasoned decisions based upon Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 the law and facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 h. Refraining from reaching issues that Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office . 2 need not be decided. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 i. Treating parties equally regardless of And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge race, sex or economic status. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Last Name]? j. Being courteous toward attorneys. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ l. Being prepared for oral argument. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this Please use back page for any additional comments. survey is very much appreciated. ## Page 39 J. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge JoAnn L. Vogt in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Survey of District Judges _ Regarding Appellate Judges _ _ Please answer the enclosed questions about each of the two Supreme Court justices and the eight Court of Appeals judges who are standing for retention in November 2008. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” indicates you believe the judge or justice is doing excellent on that aspect of his or her job, a “D” indicates that you believe he or she is doing Please mail the completed questionnaire in poorly on that aspect of the job and an “F” indicates that the enclosed postage-paid envelope. you believe the judge or justice is failing at that task. B’s and C’s indicate that you believe the judge or justice is Thank you. performing between excellent and poor on the particular task. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. Page 12 ## Page 40 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. H. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge No Sandra I. Rothenberg in the space below. If you would like A B C D F Grade to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 a sheet with additional comments. Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 2. Writing opinions that are clear. I. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Diana L. Terry in the space below. If you would like to make No A B C D F Grade more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 with additional comments. Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Continued on Back Page Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 41 F. Please write comments you would like to make about 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Judge Jerry N. Jones in the space below. If you would like Court’s decision. to make more comments than space allows, feel free to No attach a sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Gilbert Roman in the space below. If you would No A B C D F Grade like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 attach a sheet with additional comments. _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 42 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge David M. Furman in the space below. If you would like to No make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a A B C D F Grade sheet with additional comments. Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge facts. Robert D. Hawthorne in the space below. If you would like No to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach A B C D F Grade a sheet with additional comments. Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 43 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Gregory J. Hobbs in the space below. If you would like to decided. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Steven L. Bernard. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or Steven L. Bernard in the space below. If you would like to economic status. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Judge Steven L. Bernard. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Page 8 Page 5 ## Page 44 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge 6 A B C D F Grade Jones Roman Rothenberg Justice Allison H. Eid . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Justice Gregory J. Hobbs . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge Steven L. Bernard . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Judge David M. Furman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Robert D. Hawthorne . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge Jerry N. Jones . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gilbert Roman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Judge Judge Sandra I. Rothenberg . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Terry Vogt Judge Diana L. Terry . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 Judge JoAnn L. Vogt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Justice Justice Eid Hobbs Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 A . Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Allison H. Eid in the space below. If you would like to make Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet Undecided or don’t know enough with additional comments. to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 _ Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ Judge Judge Judge _ Bernard Furman Hawthorne _ Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough _ to make recommendation. 3 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 _ _ Page 6 Page 7
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
- 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026