Kim Karn

Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo

Meets Standards1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 70.0% yes
40,603 yes · 17,416 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report Eight members of the Tenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agree that Judge Kim Karn MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Two members of the commission were recused. Judge Karn was appointed by Governor Hickenlooper on December 19, 2014, and she took the bench on January 2, 2015. She received an undergraduate degree and subsequently graduated from the University of Iowa School of Law in 1989. Judge Karn began work as a deputy with the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender and then entered private practice. In 2003 she returned to work with the Office of the Public Defender where she was employed until being appointed to the District Court bench. The commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Karn, reviewed her judicial opinions and self-evaluation, performed extensive courtroom observations, interviewed local agencies and considered the results of the 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report and Case Management Reports. On the Judicial Performance Survey, all surveyed groups had a sufficient response rate from those who had experience with Judge Karn. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 93% indicated that Judge Karn meets performance standards and 7% indicated that she did not meet performance standards. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 77% indicated that Judge Karn meets performance standards, 13% indicated she did not meet performance standards and 10% had no opinion. Of the Appellate Judges responding to the survey, 2 Appellate Judges rated her overall performance as “excellent” and 1 Appellate Judge rated her overall performance as “good”. Judge Karn initially presided over civil cases, which she admits was a steep learning curve for her due to her background in criminal law. After handling this docket for over a year, she was assigned to a criminal docket, which she finds much more satisfying and comfortable. In all major categories of the Judicial Performance Surveys, non-attorneys rated Judge Karn slightly higher than attorneys. Attorneys generally found that Judge Karn managed her cases well, she was fair and impartial, she had a good demeanor but indicated improvement could be made by working on her communication skills to allow non-attorney participants in her proceedings have a better understanding of what is going on with their cases. Non-attorneys found that her application and knowledge of the law was slightly lower than attorney participants found in their evaluations. During courtroom observations, Commission members found Judge Karn to be considerate and understanding of participants in her division and they found her communication skills to be appropriate under the individual circumstances of the case being observed. Judge Karn’s personal interview and self-evaluation demonstrates self-awareness of her overall performance and she implements a growth mindset, working to improve areas of weakness. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Karn meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories.

Surveys & reports

2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Kimberly J. Karn 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Kimberly J. Karn, 45 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 31 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 31 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.97 4.00 3.30 3.12 3.03 2.89 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.12 2.89 3.30 3.97 3.03 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 80% 72% 71% 71% 67% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 72% 71% 71% 100% 67% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 2.95 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.66 2.99 3.87 2.63 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.14 3.43 4.00 3.19 Diligence 2.71 3.45 4.00 3.23 Demeanor 2.98 3.37 4.00 3.10 Fairness N/A 3.28 4.00 2.98 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 87 0 24 28% 42% Total Non- 225 25 21 9% 19% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 13 0 5 38% 0% Other Non- 212 25 16 8% 25% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Karn, 24 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 14 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 14 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Kimberly J. Karn be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Total Retain 71% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 21% Figure 3 100% 80% 57% 59% 60% 40% 21% 20% 14% 14% 7% 9% 7% 6% 5% 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 Karn All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn 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 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 2.95 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.93 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 2.92 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.07 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 6 Case Management Judge Kimberly J. All Karn Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Karn Judges Responses: 14 Promptly issuing a decision on the 29% 43% 7% -- 7% 14% 3.00 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 57% 14% 14% 7% 7% -- 3.07 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 46% 23% 15% 8% 8% -- 2.92 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 43% 36% -- 14% 7% -- 2.93 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 2.95 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn 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 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.66 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.71 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.79 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 4.00 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.57 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.57 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 14 Karn Judges Being able to identify and 29% 43% -- 14% 14% -- 2.57 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 29% 43% -- 14% 14% -- 2.57 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 43% 29% 7% 7% 14% -- 2.79 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 43% 29% -- 14% 14% -- 2.71 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.66 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.14 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 2.93 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.36 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 8 Communications Judge Kimberly J. Karn Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Karn Number of Responses: 14 Judges Making sure all participants 64% 21% 7% -- 7% -- 3.36 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 57% 14% 7% 7% 14% -- 2.93 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.14 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 2.98 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.86 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.07 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 9 Demeanor Judge Kimberly J. Karn Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Karn Judges Number of Responses: 14 Giving proceedings a sense of 57% 21% -- 7% 14% -- 3.00 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 57% 21% 7% -- 14% -- 3.07 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 57% 14% 7% -- 21% -- 2.86 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.98 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 2.71 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 2.69 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 2.93 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 2.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 10 Diligence Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 14 Karn Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 36% 29% 7% 7% 21% -- 2.50 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 64% 7% 7% -- 21% -- 2.93 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 50% 14% -- 7% 21% 7% 2.69 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.71 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Karn in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 1 0.8 0.6 48% 0.4 29% 0.2 11% 8% 3% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Karn All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kimberly J. Karn, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 17 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 17 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of quest ions asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 16 ## Page 19 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Karn be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Total Retain 71% Neither 14% Total Not Retain 14% Figure 10 100% 80% 71% 69% 60% 40% 20% 16% 14% 14% 6% 6% 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 Karn All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.37 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.18 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.35 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 12 Demeanor Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 17 Karn Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 71% 18% -- -- 12% -- 3.35 3.68 Treating participants with respect 82% 6% 6% -- 6% -- 3.59 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 76% 6% 6% -- 12% -- 3.35 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 71% 6% 6% 6% 12% -- 3.18 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.37 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.28 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.60 case 3.29 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.53 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.12 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.24 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 13 Fairness Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Karn Number of Responses: 17 Judges Giving participants an 71% 6% 12% -- 12% -- 3.24 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 71% 6% 6% -- 18% -- 3.12 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 71% 6% 6% -- 6% 12% 3.53 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 71% 6% 12% 6% 6% -- 3.29 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.28 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.43 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 3.53 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.41 Making sure all participants understand the 3.70 proceedings 3.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 14 Communications Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 17 Karn Judges Making sure all participants understand the 76% 6% 6% -- 12% -- 3.35 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 71% 12% 12% -- 6% -- 3.41 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 82% -- 12% -- 6% -- 3.53 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.43 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.45 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.29 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.38 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.25 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 15 Diligence Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 17 Karn Judges Beginning court on time 82% 18% -- -- -- -- 3.82 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 71% -- 12% -- 12% 6% 3.25 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 76% 12% 6% -- 6% -- 3.53 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 59% 24% 6% -- 6% 6% 3.38 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 71% 6% 12% 6% 6% -- 3.29 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.45 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.99 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.94 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.13 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 2.94 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Karn Table 16 Application of Law Judge Kimberly J. Karn All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Karn Number of Responses: 17 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 65% 6% -- 18% 12% -- 2.94 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 6% -- -- 18% 12% 3.13 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 65% -- 18% -- 18% -- 2.94 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.99 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Karn is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Karn is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 1 85% 81% 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 4% 6% 8% 5% 8% 4% 0 Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Karn All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Karn are. If you feel Judge Karn generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 79% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 4% 7% 7% 5% 7% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Karn All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 25
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  80%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  77%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Kimberly J. Karn 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Kimberly J. Karn, 96 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 77 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 77 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.96 4 3.42 3.37 3.31 2.99 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.37 3.31 3.42 3.96 2.99 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 93% 80% 80% 77% 62% 60% 40% 24% 20% 15% 12% 13% 10% 8% 7% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 80% 93% 77% 100% 62% standards No, does not meet performance 12% 7% 13% 0% 24% standards No opinion 8% 0% 10% 0% 15% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.21 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.24 3.41 3.98 2.96 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.37 3.46 3.97 3.04 Diligence 3.27 3.46 3.86 3.14 Demeanor 3.44 3.37 3.99 2.86 Fairness N/A 3.41 4.00 2.96 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 65 0 20 31% 20% Total Non- 1024 215 76 9% 20% Attorneys Staff 40 0 8 20% 13% Jurors 96 1 21 22% 0% Other Non- 888 214 47 7% 30% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Karn, 20 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 16 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 16 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.21 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.21 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.25 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.27 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Kimberly J. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Karn Promptly issuing a decision on the 9 2 1 1 1 2 16 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 11 1 2 1 1 -- 16 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 10 2 1 1 1 1 16 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 8 3 3 1 1 -- 16 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.24 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.33 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 3.2 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.36 are similar 3.20 3.2 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 10 2 2 -- 1 -- 15 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 9 2 3 -- 1 -- 15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 7 3 -- -- 1 2 13 similar Being fair and impartial to both 9 3 1 1 1 -- 15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 7 4 3 -- 1 -- 15 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.37 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.47 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 3.21 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 10 4 -- -- 1 -- 15 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 7 5 1 -- 1 1 15 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.44 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.44 3.4 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 11 2 1 -- 1 -- 15 dignity Treating participants with respect 11 2 1 -- 1 -- 15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 10 3 1 -- 1 -- 15 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Karn on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.29 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.5 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 2.92 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 8 4 1 -- 1 -- 14 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 10 3 -- -- 1 -- 14 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 6 2 2 1 1 2 14 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Karn meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Yes, meets performance 93% standards No, does not meet 7% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Karn, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 3 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 3 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 14 ## Page 17 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by 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 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.67 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Kimberly A B C D Fail DK/NA Total J. Karn Overall performance as a 2 1 -- -- -- 12 15 judge *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kimberly J. Karn, 76 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 61 agreed they had worked with Judge Karn enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 61 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 16 ## Page 19 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 17 ## Page 20 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.37 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.42 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.4 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.35 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.32 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 43 6 7 1 3 2 62 Treating participants with respect 44 5 5 3 3 2 62 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 44 4 5 3 4 2 62 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 43 6 3 3 5 2 62 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.49 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 3.33 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 3.26 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.34 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 44 6 6 -- 3 3 62 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 44 4 5 2 5 2 62 case without bias Treating fairly people who 26 3 6 2 2 22 61 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 42 4 6 2 4 4 62 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.33 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 3.42 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.62 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 40 6 6 3 3 4 62 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 43 7 5 2 3 2 62 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 45 9 5 -- 1 2 62 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.46 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.35 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.48 for cases 3.61 3.62 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3.49 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.34 wasted time 3.51 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 42 8 3 3 4 2 62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 44 5 4 3 2 4 62 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 47 5 7 -- 1 2 62 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 41 7 6 2 1 5 62 Managing court proceedings so that there is 42 4 8 1 4 3 62 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.38 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.56 3.39 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Karn All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kimberly J. Karn A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 37 5 5 3 2 8 60 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 39 4 5 2 1 10 61 pressure Being able to identify and 40 5 3 2 4 7 61 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Karn meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Kimberly J. Karn Yes, meets performance 77% standards No, does not meet 13% performance standards No opinion 10% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimberly J. Karn 24

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

2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026