Lynn J. Karowsky

Evaluation history

• 2006 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 72.6% yes

  42,697 yes · 16,105 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Lynn Jay Karowsky BE RETAINED. Judge Karowsky was appointed to the Weld County Court in 1996. He received his law degree from University of Colorado School of Law after receiving his undergraduate degree from Stanford University. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Karowsky was an Assistant Professor of Business Law at the University of Northern Colorado and concurrently served as Small Claims Court Magistrate. In his current position, more than half his time is devoted to traffic cases, and the remainder about equally divided among civil cases under $15,000 in dispute and misdemeanors. The Commission members reviewed evaluations of Judge Karowsky from attorneys and non-attorneys who were familiar with his performance in the courtroom. The Commission members also reviewed a self-evaluation provided by Judge Karowsky and interviewed him in person. Judge Karowsky’s passion and enthusiasm for his job were apparent during the interview. The results from all evaluation mechanisms were consistently positive. Judge Karowsky is viewed as fair, knowledgeable, and patient by attorneys (100% of whom recommend that he be retained), and viewed by non-attorneys (94% of whom recommend retention) as a good communicator who is patient and personable. Believing that it is important to have an active role in the community, Judge Karowsky participates as a volunteer in a variety of organizations—especially ones relating to domestic violence. He finds such activity to be one way he can maintain an appropriate community perspective as well as provide the community with a positive impression of the judiciary. Judge Karowsky has an enthusiasm and skill for his position that is obvious and appreciated by participants and observers in his courtroom. His evaluations by attorneys and non-attorneys were outstanding in all areas, with particularly high marks in the areas of application and knowledge of the law, integrity, communications, and demeanor. The Commission believes Judge Karowsky is an excellent judge who has earned the respect of attorneys and non-attorneys and should be retained.
• 2002 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Lynn J. Karowsky BE RETAINED. Judge Karowsky was appointed to the County Court in 1996. Between 1981 and 1996 he was a Small Claims Court Magistrate. He has also held the position of Assistant Professor of Business Law at the University of Northern Colorado and currently serves as a visiting professor, teaching one class a year. His community involvement is broad based, having served on boards and committees ranging from traffic safety to domestic violence to the arts. He currently hears about 20% civil, 50% traffic and 30% misdemeanor cases. In his interview, Judge Karowsky rated his strengths as legal reasoning, preparation prior to trial and a courteous and relaxed judicial demeanor. The survey results from attorneys and non-attorneys echoed these strengths. He, as well as a few survey respondents, described a weakness as his tendency to be verbose. Judge Karowsky’s overall survey results from both attorneys and non-attorneys were excellent. He received an 81% vote to retain by non-attorneys and a 96% vote to retain by attorneys. The average vote to retain for all county judges was 81% from non-attorneys and 83% from attorneys. The written comments submitted by the survey respondents were also outstanding, describing Judge Karowksy as excellent, respectful, fair, knowledgeable, patient, thorough, courteous and one of the finest judges.
• 1998 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Lynn J. Karowsky BE RETAINED. Judge Karowsky was appointed to the County Court on August 1, 1996. From August 1981 until July 1996, he was a Small Claims Magistrate and business law professor specializing in Uniform Commercial Code and consumer law. Prior to the time, he was in the private practice of law for six years. Judge Karowsky currently hears 25% civil cases, 55% traffic cases, and 20% misdemeanor cases. An overwhelming majority of those surveyed in questionnaires distributed to attorneys, court employees, litigants, law enforcement personnel, and jurors recommended Judge Karowsky be retained. Victims and Social Service employees were also sampled, but their response rate was too small to be representative. Based on a review of written evaluations by the group surveyed, Judge Karowsky received praise for his judicial temperament, patience, sense of justice, fairness, knowledge of the law and clear instructions. Two areas of suggested improvement centered around decreasing the amount of time taken on some cases and on becoming more concise and succinct in regard to oral rulings.

Surveys & reports

• 2006 cycle
  • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLyynnnn JJ.. KKaarroowwsskkyy 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable Lynn J. Karowsky Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Karowsky: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable Lynn J. Karowsky Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.8 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.8 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.9 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.9 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.7 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.8 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.4 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.3 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.1 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.6 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.7 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.6 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.7 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.7 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.8 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 3.7 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.8 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.7 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.7 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.9 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.9 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.7 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 3.6 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.7 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.7 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.9 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.8 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 4.0 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.9 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.9 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 4.0 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 4.0 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 4.0 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 4.0 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.8 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.8 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.9 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 3.9 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.8 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.7 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 4.0 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.7 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.7 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 3.6 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 3.8 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.9 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 3.8 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Karowsky is toward the defense or prosecution? Lynn J. 0.4 Karowsky County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Karowsky's sentences? Lynn J. -0.2 Karowsky County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 94% 94% 90% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 14%14% 13%13% 10% 6% 6% 5%5% 5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4%4% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Karowsky Including Undecided C o u n t y J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 69% 54% 56% B 20% 21% 21% C 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 11% 19% 17% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 53% 56% B 35% 29% 28% C 8% 11% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 52% 51% B 30% 30% 29% C 8% 10% 11% D 3% 3% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 54% 53% B 22% 31% 31% C 16% 9% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 8% 1% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.1 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 44% 28% 27% B 13% 17% 18% C 5% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 41% 47% 43% Average 3.6 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 73% 61% 63% B 22% 26% 25% C 5% 8% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 43% 44% B 19% 25% 25% C 5% 7% 8% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 24% 24% 19% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 48% 48% B 22% 21% 21% C 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 24% 26% 24% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 52% 50% B 24% 29% 30% C 3% 8% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 8% 6% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 50% 53% B 14% 28% 27% C 8% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.7 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 54% 57% B 8% 26% 25% C 5% 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 44% 20% 28% B 12% 13% 15% C 3% 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 41% 58% 48% Average 3.7 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 30% 29% B 19% 19% 20% C 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 30% 34% 33% Average 3.7 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 50% 52% B 8% 31% 30% C 3% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 89% 55% 58% B 8% 29% 27% C 3% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 76% 53% 57% B 16% 29% 27% C 5% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 34% 38% 33% B 19% 23% 20% C 6% 6% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 47% 29% 37% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 65% 51% 53% B 16% 22% 22% C 5% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 12% 12% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 62% 52% 54% B 16% 23% 22% C 5% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 16% 14% 14% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 84% 72% 73% B 11% 21% 20% C 5% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 97% 71% 71% B 3% 20% 20% C 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 92% 73% 74% B 8% 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 97% 66% 69% B 3% 22% 20% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 4.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 97% 69% 70% B 3% 17% 17% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 95% 58% 59% B 3% 23% 22% C 8% 9% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 3% 2% 3% Average 4.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 97% 66% 69% B 3% 20% 18% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 62% 63% B 11% 20% 19% C 3% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 84% 63% 64% B 14% 22% 21% C 3% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 62% 63% B 14% 20% 19% C 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 92% 68% 69% B 8% 20% 19% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 76% 58% 59% B 22% 24% 23% C 8% 8% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 60% 63% B 8% 16% 15% C 4% 3% D 5% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 8% 16% 16% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 86% 56% 52% B 3% 15% 13% C 4% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 11% 21% 28% Average 4.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 70% 48% 52% B 22% 25% 23% C 5% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 14% 12% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 51% 53% B 22% 28% 27% C 8% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 5% 4% Average 3.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 49% 53% B 14% 28% 26% C 3% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 9% 7% Average 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 50% 53% B 11% 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 11% 17% 15% Average 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 46% 39% 41% B 8% 16% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 43% 38% 36% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Karowsky is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 5% 5% 5% 3 7% 7% 2 5% 12% 11% 1 15% 19% 18% 70% 47% 47% -1 3% 4% -2 5% 2% 2% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 0.4 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Karowsky are? Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 3% 4% 3 5% 5% 2 8% 9% 1 10% 15% 15% 75% 58% 55% -1 5% 2% 3% -2 5% 2% 3% -3 5% 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average -0.2 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Karowsky be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 94% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 6% 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.7 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.7 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.7 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 3.7 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 3.6 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.7 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.7 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.7 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 3.7 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 3.7 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.7 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 3.6 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.2 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 3.6 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 3.5 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 3.7 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.3 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 3.7 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 3.7 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Lynn J. Karowsky County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Karowsky is toward the defense or prosecution? Lynn J. 0 Karowsky County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Karowsky's sentences? Lynn J. -0.3 Karowsky County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 84% 82% 79% 80% 78% 75% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 10%10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6%6% 6% 4% 4% 3%3% 3%3% 2% 2% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Karowsky S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 65% 69% B 21% 23% 20% C 4% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 69% 72% B 22% 18% 17% C 1% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 66% 70% B 14% 19% 17% C 7% 6% 5% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 62% 66% B 22% 20% 18% C 6% 7% 6% D 1% 4% 3% Fail 1% 5% 5% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 68% 71% B 16% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 66% 69% B 17% 17% 16% C 6% 6% 5% D 4% 3% Fail 1% 5% 4% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 51% 49% B 13% 13% 11% C 4% 5% 4% D 3% 2% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 32% 25% 30% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 65% 68% B 22% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 70% 73% B 14% 18% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 71% 74% B 19% 19% 18% C 3% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 73% 75% B 19% 17% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 52% 55% B 31% 26% 26% C 12% 11% 10% D 5% 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 69% 69% 72% B 22% 20% 18% C 5% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 56% 56% 58% B 20% 20% 19% C 9% 7% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 13% 13% 12% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 68% 63% 67% B 22% 19% 17% C 6% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 7% 7% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 59% 61% B 26% 23% 23% C 9% 9% 8% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 70% 59% 62% B 16% 19% 18% C 5% 7% 6% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 7% 7% 7% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 55% 58% B 20% 16% 14% C 4% 5% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 14% 17% 17% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 60% 64% B 16% 18% 16% C 6% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 5% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 8% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Karowsky is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 3% 2% 4 2% 1% 3 5% 3% 2% 2 1% 3% 3% 1 4% 6% 5% 83% 75% 78% -1 4% 3% 3% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 1% 1% -4 1% 1% 1% -5 1% 2% 2% Average 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Karowsky are? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 4% 3% 4 2% 2% 3 2% 2% 2 3% 3% 1 5% 4% 4% 73% 69% 71% -1 8% 5% 5% -2 5% 4% 4% -3 2% 2% 2% -4 2% 1% 1% -5 3% 2% 2% Average -0.3 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 Lynn J. Karowsky Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Karowsky be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 84% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 4% 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 2% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 91 Lynn J. Karowsky Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 3 2 1 0 0 66.7% Attorney For Defendant 32 18 7 7 0 72.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 33 17 11 4 1 60.7% Unknown/Other Attorney Type 3 0 2 1 0 0.0% Sub Total: 71 37 21 12 1 62.7% Defendant 266 27 156 81 2 14.8% Plaintiff 65 15 41 9 0 26.8% Law Enforcement 5 1 4 0 0 20.0% Employee 12 6 4 2 0 60.0% Juror 102 55 41 5 1 57.3% Other 18 2 9 7 0 18.2% Parole Officers 7 3 3 0 1 50.0% Sub Total: 475 109 258 104 4 29.4% Grand Total: 546 146 279 116 5 34.0% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? b. Maintaining appropriate control over _ proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Being prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ b. Willing to make decision without regard to _ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
• 2002 cycle
  • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Lynn J. Karowsky Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Karowsky: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Lynn J. Karowsky Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 91% 64% 65% B 6% 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 64% 61% B 13% 20% 22% C 2% 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 3% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 55% 48% B 6% 17% 14% C 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 67% 63% B 6% 15% 12% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 11% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 69% 66% B 9% 16% 14% C 2% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 6% 8% 12% Average Grade 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 70% 66% B 6% 14% 13% C 2% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 4% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 66% 65% B 6% 15% 13% C 2% 6% 5% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 60% 60% B 11% 18% 17% C 2% 9% 8% D 6% 5% Fail 2% 3% 4% No Grade 2% 4% 5% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 58% 51% B 4% 14% 11% C 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 9% 19% 31% Average Grade 4.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 56% 59% B 15% 15% 12% C 2% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 11% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 29% 37% B 21% 22% 23% C 8% 9% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 34% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 51% 54% B 28% 30% 28% C 2% 10% 9% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 53% 54% B 21% 27% 26% C 10% 9% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 89% 62% 64% B 9% 21% 21% C 7% 7% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 57% 57% B 9% 22% 22% C 9% 8% D 2% 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 4% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 26% 47% 46% B 43% 27% 27% C 13% 11% 11% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 17% 8% 8% Average Grade 3.1 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 51% 54% B 43% 27% 28% C 4% 11% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 13% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 53% 54% B 30% 24% 25% C 15% 11% 10% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 13% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 56% 58% B 19% 25% 23% C 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 21% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 48% 49% B 13% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 38% 35% 33% B 11% 14% 13% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 51% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 47% 53% B 36% 28% 25% C 2% 12% 9% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 6% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 48% 49% B 28% 24% 25% C 2% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 17% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 40% 44% B 45% 30% 29% C 6% 13% 12% D 2% 6% 5% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 11% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.2 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 49% 50% B 15% 21% 20% C 9% 9% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 15% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Karowsky be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 96% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 2% 11% 11% No opinion 2% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 65% 67% B 24% 20% 19% C 3% 7% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 49% 47% B 22% 16% 15% C 2% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 27% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 63% 65% B 16% 15% 14% C 6% 4% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 65% 67% B 21% 16% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 64% 67% B 21% 16% 16% C 2% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 64% 66% B 23% 16% 15% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 63% 65% B 20% 16% 16% C 5% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 5% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 45% 43% B 16% 13% 12% C 3% 5% 4% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 6% 4% 3% No Grade 30% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 60% 63% B 18% 16% 16% C 2% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 20% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 68% 70% B 28% 20% 19% C 4% 6% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 67% 69% B 27% 19% 18% C 7% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 69% 72% B 21% 17% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 64% 66% B 18% 18% 17% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 55% 56% B 34% 23% 22% C 4% 9% 8% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 55% 57% B 32% 23% 23% C 9% 9% 9% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 61% 64% B 19% 19% 18% C 3% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 60% 62% B 19% 17% 16% C 2% 6% 5% D 6% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 12% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 64% 67% B 16% 17% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 60% 62% B 19% 19% 18% C 5% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Karowsky on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 53% 55% B 14% 15% 14% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 20% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Karowsky be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Karowsky Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 81% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 9% 9% 8% No opinion 10% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Lynn J. Karowsky Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 9 6 1 2 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 49 33 6 5 5 84.6% Attorney for Plaintiff 12 8 1 3 100.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 70 47 6 7 10 88.7% Law Enforcement 4 2 2 Social Services Caseworker Employee 15 12 2 1 85.7% Defendant 190 20 97 60 13 17.1% Plaintiff 12 3 6 1 2 33.3% Juror 192 57 53 15 67 51.8% Victim 20 2 9 7 2 18.2% Other 54 7 23 16 8 23.3% Sub Total: 487 101 192 102 92 34.5% Total: 557 148 198 109 102 42.8% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 19

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

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