Kristei Ray Jones
Trial Court · Yuma · Yuma
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleTrial Court · Yuma · YumaCommission vote: 7 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 76.2% yes3,100 yes · 969 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds by a vote of 7-0, with two members absent and one commissioner vacancy, that Honorable Kristei Ray Jones MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Jones was appointed to the Yuma County Court in August of 2018. The Commission conducted a virtual interview with Judge Jones, reviewed survey results, Judge Jones self-evaluation, written orders, courtroom observations and judicial performance data. Judge Jones is one of four lay judges in Colorado. Even though previously Judge Jones did not have any legal training, Judge Jones has diligently studied the law to make sure his rulings are correct. While this is not something that comes easily, Judge Jones is not afraid to seek help and guidance when faced with circumstances or legal questions he does not know the answer to. One of the many reasons for Judge Jones’ success is due to his outstanding preparation. Prior to any hearing, Judge Jones researches legal issues so that he understands the applicable law. Throughout all the information received the commission unanimously believes Judge Jones meets performance standards. In reviewing the survey results the Commission could hold little weight to the survey results due to minimal responses. Response rates on surveys throughout the State of Colorado have been down in the last year. One of these reasons was due to an accessibility issue and the other issue is presumably the rural jurisdiction. In the 2024 survey retention period Judge Jones received six responses. In the 2023 interim survey period Judge Jones received 11 responses but only five responses from respondents who had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. In the very limited survey results, Judge Jones performed above average compared to other county court judges in the state in both the 2023 and 2024 survey results. The applicable areas the commission is tasked with evaluating are Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor, and Fairness. Judge Jones is a part-time judge in Yuma County. Judge Jones is a ranch owner and operator, as well as an owner of Tri State Livestock. He has served as a Volunteer Fireman in Wauneta and Wray since 1995. He also served as the Mayor of Wray from 2008-2012 and was a member of the Wray City Council from 2004-2008. Judge Jones earned his diploma from Yuma High School in 1985.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Yuma · YumaMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 75.5% yes3,389 yes · 1,099 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Kristei Ray Jones MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Six members of the Commission voted that Judge Jones meets performance standards; no members voted that he does not meet performance standards (three members did not participate and there is one vacancy on the Commission). Judge Jones has been serving as the Yuma County Court Judge for about two years, with a docket consisting primarily of traffic, misdemeanor, civil, and small claims matters. This is a part-time position. Judge Jones is a lay judge with no prior formal legal training or experience. Judge Jones has been working diligently over this term to learn the law and legal procedure and appears to be increasing his proficiency in this regard. He has compensated for his lack of training and education in the law by spending additional time researching and preparing for hearings. Judge Jones has demonstrated a willingness, commitment, and ability to do the work necessary to continue to grow in this position. The Commission believes that he has made satisfactory progress in this regard during his first two years on the bench. The Commission has no concerns about Judge Jones’ judicial temperament, integrity, administrative performance, or communication skills. Judge Jones expressed a desire to turn his greatest weakness, namely his lack of prior legal education or training, into an asset. He has found that his own experiences trying to navigate an unfamiliar court system enable him to relate to and communicate more effectively with individuals representing themselves in the courtroom. This is a valuable skill, given that these individuals make up a significant portion of litigants and present a challenge for all judges. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Jones. It also reviewed recordings of court proceedings; written materials, including a self-evaluation and orders issued; and survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had interaction with Judge Jones in court. The Commission placed limited weight on the survey results, due to the small number of responses (only seven individuals responded). Survey responses did reflect notably strong performance in case management and a number of respondents remarked that Judge Jones consistently starts court on time, runs an efficient courtroom, and rules on matters promptly. During his interview with the Commission, Judge Jones reflected on some of the things he had learned from survey responses and changes he had implemented as a result. It is evident that he is adapting based upon feedback and eager to perform well in this position. Judge Jones is a cattle rancher, and previously owned an agricultural fertilizer and pesticide application business in Wray. He was a Volunteer Fireman in Wauneta and Wray from 1995 to 2019; was a member of Wray City Council from 2004-2008; and served as the Mayor of Wray from 2008-2012. He earned his high school diploma from Yuma High School in 1985 and is a veteran of the United States Army.
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kristei Jo nes 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report County C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor . .10 Diligence . .11 Fairness . .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jones, 5 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 5 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 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Jones All County Judges Judge Jones All County Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 85% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% Judge Jones All County Judges Judge Jones All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Jones Jones Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 100% 85% standards No, does not meet 0% 15% 0% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 3.8 Fairness 3.4 Judge Jones All County Judges Judge All County Jones Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and 3.4 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 3.8 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 8 14% 25% 2 Non-Attorneys 3 - - 3 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Jones received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.5 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.5 3 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.7 5 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 4 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.0 4 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.4 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.3 5 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 2 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 2 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 2 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.0 3.4 N/A 3.0 3 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 3 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Jones Attorneys 4.0 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.3 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.7 5 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, - 3.4 - N/A 0 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.0 3.7 N/A 3.0 3 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Score 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Jones Attorneys 4.0 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.3 5 dignity Treating participants with 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.7 5 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 3 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.8 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.4 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4.0 3.1 4.0 N/A 2 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4.0 3.3 4.0 N/A 2 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 2 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 3 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 3 Managing court proceedings so 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 3 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Score 3.8 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Jones Attorneys 4.0 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Jones County Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 3 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 3 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 3 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 3 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.8 3.4 4.0 3.7 5 manner. Being fair and impartial 4.0 3.2 4.0 N/A 2 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 5 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 5 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, 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 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. 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 emailed invitations, attorneys 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 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated 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 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 13 ## Page 14 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. To help reduce the 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 a list of all judges in their district or 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 f or 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 (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A 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 2022 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 14 ## Page 15 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the 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 Kristei Jones 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 56 8 2 25% Staff - 3 3 - Others 45 0 0 - Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 3 3 - Total Respondents - 11 5 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 16 - 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kr istei Jones 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court 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 . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 13 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jones, 6 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 6 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 104 2 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 2 Non-attorney email Invite 29 1 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 3 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 4 Total N/A 6 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. 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. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Jones Overall Judge Jones Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.8 6 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 100% 100% 2 4 standards No, does not meet performance 0% 0% 0 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 Kristei Jones 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Jones Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Communications 3.7 Diligence 3.8 Demeanor 3.9 Fairness 3.8 Judge Jones Score Judge Jones Number of Score Responses Case Management 3.6 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 6 Communications 3.7 6 Diligence 3.8 6 Demeanor 3.9 6 Fairness 3.8 6 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.6 Attorneys 3.6 Non-Attorneys 3.6 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.8 4.0 3.8 5 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 4.0 4.0 4.0 6 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.2 3.5 3.0 5 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.6 3.0 4.0 5 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.7 4.0 3.5 6 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 4.0 Non-Attorneys 3.6 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.8 4.0 3.8 6 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Issues consistent decisions when the 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Consistently applies laws and rules. 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.7 Attorneys 3.9 Non-Attorneys 3.6 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.7 4.0 3.5 6 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Uses language that everyone can understand. 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.9 Attorneys 4.0 Non-Attorneys 3.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 4.0 4.0 4.0 6 Treats participants with respect. 3.8 4.0 3.8 6 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.8 Attorneys 3.8 Non-Attorneys 3.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.5 3.5 N/A 2 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 4.0 N/A 4.0 4 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Is prepared for cases 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 Manages court proceedings so there is little 4.0 N/A 4.0 3 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.8 Attorneys 4.0 Non-Attorneys 3.6 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.8 N/A 3.8 4 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.5 N/A 3.5 4 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 4.0 4.0 N/A 2 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 6 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 6 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 Kristei Jones 13 ## Page 14 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 Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent 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-select) 2497 793 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 Kristei Jones 14 ## Page 15 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 Kristei Jones 15 ## Page 16 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 Kristei Jones 16 ## Page 17 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 Kristei Jones 17 ## Page 18 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 Kristei Jones 18
- 2020 cycle
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score2.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend67%6 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend60%3 respondents
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kristei Jones 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Jones, 7 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 7 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 4 3.4 3 2.6 2 1 0 Judge Jones All County Judges Judge Jones All County Judges Overall Grade 2.6 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 83% 80% 67% 60% 60% 40% 40% 33% 20% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Jones All County Judges Judge Jones All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Jones Jones Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 67% 83% 60% 94% standards No, does not meet 33% 13% 40% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.5 2.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 2.9 Communications 3.5 2.7 Diligence 3.4 2.6 Demeanor 3.4 2.0 Fairness 3.8 Judge Jones All County Judges Judge All County Jones Judges Case 3.7 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 2.3 3.3 Law Communications 2.9 3.5 Diligence 2.7 3.4 Demeanor 2.6 3.4 Fairness 2.0 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 6 27% 67% 4 Non-Attorneys 3 60% 100% 3 In addition to the responses above, Judge Jones received 2 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.8 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.8 3.6 4 3.7 6 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.7 6 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.7 6 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.4 4 3.3 6 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Overall 2.3 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.1 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 1.8 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 2.4 3.4 3.3 1.8 8 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 3 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3 3.3 3 N/A 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.7 3.1 2.7 N/A 3 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 3.2 3 N/A 3 rules Giving reasons for rulings 1.6 3.7 N/A 1.6 5 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2 3.7 N/A 2 5 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Overall 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.3 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 2.6 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 2.5 3.6 3.3 2.0 8 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 3 reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.8 N/A 3.5 4 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3 3.8 N/A 3.0 5 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Score 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.6 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 2.1 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 2.8 3.5 3.7 2.2 8 dignity Treating participants with respect 2.6 3.5 3.7 2.0 8 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.0 8 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 2.2 3.8 N/A 2.2 5 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Jones Score 2.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Jones Attorneys 3.4 Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 2.3 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 11 ## Page 12 County Judge Jones Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.2 3 N/A 3 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 3 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 3 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 3 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 2.4 3.7 N/A 2.4 5 Maintaining appropriate control 2.3 3.7 N/A 2.3 3 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.5 3.8 N/A 2.5 4 cases Managing court proceedings so 2.5 3.6 N/A 2.5 4 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Jones Score 2.0 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Jones Attorneys Judge Jones Non-Attorneys 2.0 Judge Jones County Judge Jones Judge Jones Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 1.8 3.8 N/A 1.8 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.0 3.8 N/A 2.0 5 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 2.0 3.8 N/A 2.0 5 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 2.0 3.8 N/A 2.0 5 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Jones, 7 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 7 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% 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 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% 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 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards 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. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 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. 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 15 ## Page 16 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 22 6 0 4 67% Staff 3 3 0 3 - Others 2 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 5 3 0 3 100% Total Respondents 27 9 0 7 78% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kristei Jones 17
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
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026