Timothy G. Kerns

Evaluation history

• 2026 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards
  VotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.
  Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by vote of 8-0, with two commissioners absent, that Judge Timothy Gerard Kerns MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Kerns currently presides over a criminal docket in District Court in Weld County, Colorado. His performance was evaluated using the following statutory criteria: integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. The Commission found that Judge Kerns generally excelled in each category. His personable demeanor produces a courtroom atmosphere focused on respect for everyone involved. His oral rulings from the bench clearly frame the legal issues and reflect a solid knowledge of the law. His written rulings are thorough and intelligently expressed. Furthermore, the Commission found his judicial style to be authentic and thoughtful, and appreciated his ability to adapt to the uniqueness of each case. The Commission’s conclusions are based on observing Judge Kerns in court, a personal interview, reviewing opinions he authored, and reviewing survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had been involved in cases in his courtroom. Those survey responses produced an overall score of 3.8 out of 4, which is higher than the state average. Additionally, 100% of attorneys and 82% of non-attorneys responding to the survey stated that he meets performance standards. These high marks are consistent with the independent evaluations of Commission members. Judge Kerns was appointed to the District Court bench in January 2011, after serving three years as a County Court judge. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a partner in a law firm that focused on mediation, family law, dependency and neglect proceedings, and general civil matters. He received his undergraduate degrees from Central Methodist College in 1991. He earned his law degree from the University of Missouri – Kansas City in 1994. Finally, Judge Kerns serves on several community boards, including the Weld County Pretrial Services Board, Weld County Bar Association Board, and Peer to Peer Judicial Coaching Board.
• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 72.3% yes

  99,100 yes · 37,886 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Timothy G. Kerns MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Kerns presides over criminal matters in Greeley, Weld County, Colorado, but he has previously presided over civil and probate matters.  In his present role, Judge Kerns also presides over Adult Treatment Court, a rehabilitation focused court dealing primarily with criminal defendants with substance abuse issues.  Judge Kerns has been described as being fair, neutral, respectful, prepared, and diligent.  Judge Kerns is well-prepared, and it is evident how seriously he takes his obligations and how hard he tries to make the right decision in every case.  Judge Kerns understands the importance of setting an appropriate demeanor in his courtroom – one of neutrality and respect for all persons present.  Individuals who have appeared before Judge Kerns noted his respectful demeanor.  Judge Kerns maintains appropriate control of his docket, prioritizing moving cases efficiently, while understanding extraordinary circumstances on a case-by-case basis.  Judge Kerns’ written decisions are well-written and well-reasoned, such that even the losing party in cases before him commented that they have understood how Judge Kerns reached his conclusion, from a legal and factual standpoint. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluations and WebEx interview (due to COVID-19) with Judge Kerns.  The commission observed Judge Kerns to be very professional and genuine and saw how Judge Kerns conducted his courtroom with courtesy and kept appropriate control.  The Commission also read Judge Kerns’ written rulings, along with judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had courtroom interactions with Judge Kerns.  Notably, 95% of attorneys and 100% of non-attorneys (a total of two responses) indicated Judge Kerns is meeting performance standards.  Based on all findings, the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Timothy Kerns MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim 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 by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Timothy G. Kerns BE RETAINED. Judge Kerns was appointed to the Weld County Court in October of 2007 then to the District Court Bench on January 1, 2011.  Before taking the bench he worked as general counsel for a title company in Missouri.  He moved to Colorado in 1995 working in private practice with a focus on domestic relations, dependency and neglect, mediation and civil matters in Fort Morgan, Erie, and Boulder.  He was a partner in with the law firm of Crespin, Kerns & Furman, L.L.C. and Furman, Kerns & Bauer L.L.C. from 1996 until 2007. The Commission conducted a personal interview, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed surveys completed by attorneys and non-attorneys.  In answer to the question “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained,” 78% of the attorneys recommended retention, 10% recommended not to retain, and 12% made no recommendation. Of the non-attorneys responding, 94% recommended to retain, 1% recommended not to retain, and 5% made no recommendation. Judge Kerns’ docket is District Court criminal cases. He also presides over the drug court.  The overall combined survey results show Judge Kerns scored above the average for all District Court Judges standing for retention.  This was also true for the attorney surveys which graded Judge Kerns higher than the average for all District Court Judges standing for retention.  Of the non-attorney surveys, Judge Kerns received an overall grade above the average grade for all District Court Judges standing for retention.  He was graded above average in several areas on the surveys from both attorneys and non-attorneys. These areas include communication, demeanor and neutrality.  Members of the Commission were impressed with his involvement and concern for the community.
• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Weld · Weld

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim 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 by a unanimous vote of 10 to 0 that Judge Timothy G. Kerns BE RETAINED. Judge Kerns graduated from Central Methodist College in Missouri and from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. Before his appointment to the Weld County Court in October, 2007, Judge Kerns was an attorney in private practice (1996-2007) focusing primarily in domestic relations, dependency and neglect, and mediation and civil matters in Fort Morgan, Erie and Boulder, Colorado. He provided (1995) pro bono legal services in Fort Morgan, Colorado, and was general counsel for a title company in Missouri prior to moving to Colorado. In developing its recommendation, the Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Kerns, observed his court sessions, and reviewed a self-evaluation and writing samples of judicial orders and rulings. Strengths: The Commissioners found Judge Kerns to be a strong communicator, considerate, prepared and organized. Surveys were completed by jurors, defendants, defense and prosecuting attorneys, court employees and others. The non-attorney survey respondents rated Judge Kerns well above average in every category including demeanor, fairness, communications, diligence, and application of law. The attorney survey respondents also rated Judge Kerns well above average in every category including case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Weakness: Involvement in community service activities has been minimal, and Judge Kerns recognizes the need to increase his participation within the community. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 94% recommended to retain, 6% not to retain, and 0% expressed no opinion. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 89% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 8% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 97% recommended to retain and 4% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2026 cycle
  • 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Timothy G. Kerns 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 Timothy G. Kerns, 76 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 49 agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 49 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 3.92 4.00 3.74 3.75 3.73 3.66 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.74 3.75 3.73 3.92 3.66 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 91% 88% 84% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 90% 91% 88% 100% 84% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.76 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.68 3.64 3.75 3.61 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.73 3.80 3.83 3.79 Diligence 3.74 3.79 4.00 3.71 Demeanor 3.84 3.72 4.00 3.61 Fairness N/A 3.70 4.00 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 159 0 55 35% 40% Total Non- 267 15 21 8% 24% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 8 0 4 50% 0% Other Non- 259 15 17 7% 29% 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kerns, 55 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 33 agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 33 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Timothy G. Kerns be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Total Retain 91% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 3% Figure 3 100% 82% 80% 59% 60% 40% 21% 20% 9% 9% 6% 3% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.76 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.73 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.72 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.85 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.76 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 6 Case Management Judge Timothy G. All Kerns Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Kerns Judges Responses: 33 Promptly issuing a decision on the 58% 18% -- -- -- 24% 3.76 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 85% 15% -- -- -- -- 3.85 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 66% 25% -- -- -- 9% 3.72 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 76% 21% 3% -- -- -- 3.73 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.76 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.68 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.66 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.75 3.14 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.71 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.64 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Kerns Judges Being able to identify and 67% 30% 3% -- -- -- 3.64 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 70% 24% 6% -- -- -- 3.64 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 67% 27% -- -- -- 7% 3.71 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 84% 9% 3% 3% -- -- 3.75 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 75% 19% 3% 3% -- -- 3.66 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.68 3.23 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.73 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.71 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.73 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 8 Communications Judge Timothy G. Kerns Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Number of Responses: 33 Judges Making sure all participants 76% 21% 3% -- -- -- 3.73 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 70% 21% 3% -- -- 6% 3.71 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.73 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.84 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.76 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.91 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Timothy G. Kerns Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Judges Number of Responses: 33 Giving proceedings a sense of 85% 15% -- -- -- -- 3.85 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 94% 3% 3% -- -- -- 3.91 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 88% 3% 6% 3% -- -- 3.76 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.84 3.41 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.74 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.83 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 3.70 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 10 Diligence Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Kerns Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 73% 24% 3% -- -- -- 3.70 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 79% 15% 3% 3% -- -- 3.70 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 76% 15% -- -- -- 9% 3.83 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.74 3.32 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Kerns in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 73% 60% 48% 40% 27% 29% 20% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Timothy G. Kerns, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 16 agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 16 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 questi ons 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Total Retain 88% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 13% Figure 10 100% 75% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 13% 13% 6% 6% 3% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.72 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.71 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.73 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.67 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.73 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 12 Demeanor Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 15 Kerns Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 87% 7% -- 7% -- -- 3.73 3.68 Treating participants with respect 87% 7% -- -- 7% -- 3.67 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 87% 7% -- 7% -- -- 3.73 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 87% -- -- -- 7% 7% 3.71 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.72 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.70 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.71 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.67 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.67 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 13 Fairness Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Number of Responses: 15 Judges Giving participants an 87% 7% -- -- 7% -- 3.67 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 87% 7% -- -- 7% -- 3.67 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 73% -- -- -- 7% 20% 3.67 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 80% 7% -- 7% -- 7% 3.71 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.70 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.80 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 3.87 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.73 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 14 Communications Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 15 Kerns Judges Making sure all participants understand the 93% -- -- 7% -- -- 3.80 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 87% 7% -- 7% -- -- 3.73 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 87% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.87 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.80 3.74 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.79 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.80 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.79 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.87 3.65 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.80 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 15 Diligence Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 15 Kerns Judges Beginning court on time 80% 7% 13% -- -- -- 3.67 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 87% 7% 7% -- -- -- 3.80 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 93% -- 7% -- -- -- 3.87 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 80% 7% 7% -- -- 7% 3.79 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 87% 7% 7% -- -- -- 3.80 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.79 3.63 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.64 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.71 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.92 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.57 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 16 Application of Law Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Number of Responses: 15 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 80% -- 7% -- 7% 7% 3.57 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 86% 7% -- -- -- 7% 3.92 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 87% -- -- -- 7% 7% 3.71 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.64 3.52 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Kerns is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Kerns is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 79% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 4% 7% 6% 5% 7% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns are. If you feel Judge Kerns generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 93% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 7% 5% 7% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 25
  • 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Timothy G. Kerns 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 Timothy G. Kerns, 76 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 49 agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 49 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 3.92 4.00 3.74 3.75 3.73 3.66 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.74 3.75 3.73 3.92 3.66 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 91% 88% 84% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 90% 91% 88% 100% 84% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.76 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.68 3.64 3.75 3.61 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.73 3.80 3.83 3.79 Diligence 3.74 3.79 4.00 3.71 Demeanor 3.84 3.72 4.00 3.61 Fairness N/A 3.70 4.00 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 159 0 55 35% 40% Total Non- 267 15 21 8% 24% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 8 0 4 50% 0% Other Non- 259 15 17 7% 29% 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kerns, 55 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 33 agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 33 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Timothy G. Kerns be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Total Retain 91% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 3% Figure 3 100% 82% 80% 59% 60% 40% 21% 20% 9% 9% 6% 3% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.76 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.73 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.72 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.85 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.76 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 6 Case Management Judge Timothy G. All Kerns Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Kerns Judges Responses: 33 Promptly issuing a decision on the 58% 18% -- -- -- 24% 3.76 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 85% 15% -- -- -- -- 3.85 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 66% 25% -- -- -- 9% 3.72 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 76% 21% 3% -- -- -- 3.73 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.76 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.68 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.66 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.75 3.14 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar 3.71 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.64 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Kerns Judges Being able to identify and 67% 30% 3% -- -- -- 3.64 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 70% 24% 6% -- -- -- 3.64 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 67% 27% -- -- -- 7% 3.71 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 84% 9% 3% 3% -- -- 3.75 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 75% 19% 3% 3% -- -- 3.66 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.68 3.23 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.73 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.71 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.73 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 8 Communications Judge Timothy G. Kerns Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Number of Responses: 33 Judges Making sure all participants 76% 21% 3% -- -- -- 3.73 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 70% 21% 3% -- -- 6% 3.71 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.73 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.84 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.76 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.91 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Timothy G. Kerns Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Judges Number of Responses: 33 Giving proceedings a sense of 85% 15% -- -- -- -- 3.85 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 94% 3% 3% -- -- -- 3.91 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 88% 3% 6% 3% -- -- 3.76 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.84 3.41 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns 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 3.74 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.83 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 3.70 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 10 Diligence Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Kerns Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 73% 24% 3% -- -- -- 3.70 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 79% 15% 3% 3% -- -- 3.70 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 76% 15% -- -- -- 9% 3.83 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.74 3.32 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Kerns in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 73% 60% 48% 40% 27% 29% 20% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Timothy G. Kerns, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 16 agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 16 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 questi ons 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Total Retain 88% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 13% Figure 10 100% 75% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 13% 13% 6% 6% 3% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.72 3.55 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.71 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.73 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.67 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.73 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 12 Demeanor Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 15 Kerns Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 87% 7% -- 7% -- -- 3.73 3.68 Treating participants with respect 87% 7% -- -- 7% -- 3.67 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 87% 7% -- 7% -- -- 3.73 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 87% -- -- -- 7% 7% 3.71 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.72 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.70 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.71 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.67 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.67 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 13 Fairness Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Number of Responses: 15 Judges Giving participants an 87% 7% -- -- 7% -- 3.67 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 87% 7% -- -- 7% -- 3.67 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 73% -- -- -- 7% 20% 3.67 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 80% 7% -- 7% -- 7% 3.71 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.70 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.80 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.78 hear what’s being said 3.87 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.73 3.70 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 14 Communications Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 15 Kerns Judges Making sure all participants understand the 93% -- -- 7% -- -- 3.80 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 87% 7% -- 7% -- -- 3.73 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 87% 13% -- -- -- -- 3.87 3.78 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.80 3.74 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.79 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time 3.80 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.79 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.87 3.65 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases 3.80 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 15 Diligence Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 15 Kerns Judges Beginning court on time 80% 7% 13% -- -- -- 3.67 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 87% 7% 7% -- -- -- 3.80 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 93% -- 7% -- -- -- 3.87 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 80% 7% 7% -- -- 7% 3.79 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 87% 7% 7% -- -- -- 3.80 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.79 3.63 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 3.64 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.71 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.92 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.57 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Kerns Table 16 Application of Law Judge Timothy G. Kerns All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Kerns Number of Responses: 15 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 80% -- 7% -- 7% 7% 3.57 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 86% 7% -- -- -- 7% 3.92 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 87% -- -- -- 7% 7% 3.71 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.64 3.52 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Kerns is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Kerns is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 79% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 4% 7% 6% 5% 7% 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 Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 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 Kerns are. If you feel Judge Kerns generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 93% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 7% 5% 7% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Kerns All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 25
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.8

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    95%

    29 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    100%

    2 respondents
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Timothy G. Kerns 2020 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 . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Kerns, 24 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 24 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.8 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Kerns All District Judges Judge Kerns All District Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 95% 100% 92% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 5% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Kerns All District Judges Judge Kerns All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Kerns Kerns Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 95% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 5% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.8 Case Management 3.4 3.7 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.9 Communications 3.5 3.8 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.7 Judge Kerns All District Judges Judge All District Kerns Judges Case 3.8 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.7 3.3 Law Communications 3.9 3.5 Diligence 3.8 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 29 27% 76% 22 Non-Attorneys 2 100% 100% 2 In addition to the responses above, Judge Kerns received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Kerns Overall 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Kerns Attorneys 3.8 Judge Kerns Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.9 3.5 3.8 4.0 21 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 23 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.8 4.0 23 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 23 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Kerns Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Kerns Attorneys 3.7 Judge Kerns Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.7 3.4 3.7 4.0 21 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 20 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 20 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Kerns Overall 3.9 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Kerns Attorneys 3.9 Judge Kerns Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.0 22 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.8 3.3 3.8 N/A 19 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Kerns Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Kerns Attorneys 3.8 Judge Kerns Non-Attorneys 4.0 District Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.8 4.0 21 Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.0 22 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.8 3.4 3.8 4.0 22 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Kerns Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Kerns Attorneys 3.8 Judge Kerns Non-Attorneys 4.0 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 11 ## Page 12 District Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 20 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 21 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 20 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 1 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Kerns Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Kerns Attorneys Judge Kerns Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Kerns District Judge Kerns Judge Kerns Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Kerns 6 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Kerns enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Kerns Score 3.7 District Judges Number of Judge Kerns Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.7 3.6 6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kerns, 24 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 24 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 13% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 16 ## Page 17 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 6 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Kerns to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 108 29 0 22 76% Staff 2 2 0 2 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 2 2 0 2 100% Total Respondents 110 31 0 24 77% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy G. Kerns 19
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Timothy G. Kerns Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Kerns: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Timothy G. Kerns May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Timothy G. Kerns received an overall combined average grade of 3.51 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.27, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.75, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Kerns Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.51 3.27 3.75 Sample Size - 28 137 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Kerns’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Kerns Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.51 3.27 28 3.75 137 Overall 3.51 3.27 28 3.75 137 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.87, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.30. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Kerns’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Kerns Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Kerns Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.92 79 58% 3.52 58 42% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2288)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Sample Size = 28 A B C D Fail DK/NA Kerns Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 25% 11% 0% 0% 14% 3.46 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 46% 36% 14% 4% 0% 0% 3.25 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 21% 0% 0% 7% 3.27 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 43% 36% 11% 4% 4% 4% 3.15 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.28 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 39% 32% 14% 11% 0% 4% 3.04 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 39% 29% 11% 14% 4% 4% 2.89 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 46% 14% 14% 4% 7% 14% 3.04 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 46% 25% 7% 7% 4% 11% 3.16 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.03 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 75% 11% 11% 4% 0% 0% 3.57 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 54% 18% 4% 7% 0% 18% 3.43 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.50 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 18% 4% 4% 0% 0% 3.64 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 75% 18% 4% 4% 0% 0% 3.64 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 50% 21% 21% 0% 7% 0% 3.07 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 50% 18% 21% 0% 7% 4% 3.07 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 43% 25% 25% 4% 4% 0% 3.00 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 61% 21% 14% 4% 0% 0% 3.39 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 61% 25% 7% 0% 0% 7% 3.58 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.32 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.27 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Kerns Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 14% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 27% Completely neutral 57% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% 57% Recommend retain 29% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 9% Recommend not retain 4% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Total Retain 72% 81% Neither 14% 9% Total Not Retain 15% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 43% 57% Recommend retain 29% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 14% 9% Recommend not retain 4% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 72% 81% Neither 14% 9% Total Not Retain 15% 11% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.27 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.46 case after trial. 3.39 3.25 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.27 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.15 3.29 3.03 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.04 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 2.89 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.04 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.16 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 3.50 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.57 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.43 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.36 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.64 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.64 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.07 neutral manner. 3.28 3.07 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.32 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.00 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.39 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.58 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 14% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 21% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 57% Completely Neutral 47% 7% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 43% Strongly recommend retain 57% 29% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 14% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Kerns Judges* Total Retain 72% 81% 4% Recommend not retain Neither 14% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 15% 11% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 43% Strongly recommend retain 57% 29% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 14% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Kerns Judges* 4% Recommend not retain Total Retain 72% 81% 5% Neither 14% 9% 11% Total Not Retain 15% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113377)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Sample Size = 137 A B C D Fail DK/NA Kerns Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 82% 16% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3.79 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 14% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3.77 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 15% 3% 0% 1% 0% 3.74 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 82% 14% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.77 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 83% 14% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3.80 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 85% 11% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3.75 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 56% 7% 1% 0% 1% 35% 3.81 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.78 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 84% 12% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.79 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 84% 12% 3% 1% 1% 0% 3.77 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 86% 12% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3.82 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.79 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 71% 20% 7% 1% 0% 1% 3.63 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 14% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3.82 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 75% 15% 2% 1% 1% 6% 3.71 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 80% 12% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.74 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 74% 18% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.64 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.71 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 74% 18% 2% 1% 1% 4% 3.69 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 74% 7% 3% 0% 2% 14% 3.74 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 79% 10% 3% 1% 1% 5% 3.72 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.72 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 3.64 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Kerns Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 9% Competely neutral 86% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.02 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 9% Competely neutral 86% 81% Lenient sentencing total 9% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.04 0.05 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 84% 74% Recommend retain 9% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 5% 4% Recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 5% Total Retain 93% 89% Neither 5% 4% Total Not Retain 3% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 83% 71% Recommend retain 9% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 5% 4% Recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 1% 4% Total Retain 92% 85% Neither 5% 4% Total Not Retain 3% 7% Don't Know 1% 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.75 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.77 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.79 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.77 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.74 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.76 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.78 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.80 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.75 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.81 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.74 or her case. 3.66 3.79 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.79 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.82 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.71 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.63 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.82 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.71 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.74 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.64 little wasted time. 3.57 3.72 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.69 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.74 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.72 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.02 Timothy G. Kerns 0.07 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.04 Timothy G. Kerns 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 84% Strongly recommend retain 74% 9% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 5% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Kerns Judges* 1% Recommend not retain Total Retain 93% 89% 2% Neither 5% 4% Total Not Retain 3% 7% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain 71% 9% Recommend retain 14% 5% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 1% Judge Kerns Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 92% 85% Neither 5% 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 3% 7% 5% Total DK 1% 4% Don't know enough to make a 1% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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 justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Kerns is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all district judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 36 26 2 0 8 23.5% Defense Attorneys 51 29 2 0 20 40.8% Total Attorneys 87 55 4 0 28 33.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 150 73 31 4 42 35.3% Law Enforcement 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Defendant 250 126 107 1 16 11.2% Jurors 150 56 11 4 79 56.8% Total Non-attorneys 552 257 149 9 137 34.0% Grand Total: 639 312 153 9 165 34.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3130 2013 120 1 996 33.1% Defense Attorneys 4130 2444 84 0 1602 39.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 248 125 13 0 110 46.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4708 2028 213 2 2465 54.8% Other Attorneys Civil 4027 1956 366 2 1703 46.5% GAL 29 12 0 0 17 58.6% Total Attorneys 16272 8578 796 5 6893 44.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 109 66 23 5 15 17.4% Witness 5404 2746 1591 265 802 21.0% Other 832 471 248 10 103 17.6% Law Enforcement 4235 2320 1024 167 724 22.5% Defendant 20502 9362 9533 132 1475 13.4% Civil Litigant 12103 6801 2810 219 2273 24.5% Witness 498 251 99 15 133 33.3% Other 454 196 99 21 138 38.9% Jurors 17494 7070 1191 267 8966 55.0% Employees, including Interpreters 233 68 29 22 114 55.9% Probation Officers 116 42 4 8 62 55.4% Total Non-attorneys 61980 29393 16651 1131 14805 32.7% Grand Total: 78252 37971 17447 1136 21698 35.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6893 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 51% 20% 8% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 13% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 11% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 24% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 19% 10% 6% 5% 25% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 10% 5% 3% 17% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 23% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 23% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 19% 10% 5% 4% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.40 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.64 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 68% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.63 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.61 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 9% Competely neutral 81% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.05 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 89% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] 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. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 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 number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). 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 understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 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 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last 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 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Timothy G. Kerns Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Kerns: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Timothy G. Kerns received an overall combined average grade of 3.55 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.32, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.77, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Kerns Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.55 3.32 3.77 Sample Size - 63 294 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Kerns’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Kerns Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 NA NA NA NA NA 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.51 3.27 28 3.75 137 2013 3.58 3.36 35 3.79 157 Overall 3.55 3.32 63 3.77 294 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.80, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Kerns’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Kerns Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.91 152 52% 3.61 142 48% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6633)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Sample Size = 63 A B C D Fail DK/NA Kerns Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 27% 12% 0% 0% 15% 3.41 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 52% 27% 17% 3% 2% 0% 3.23 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 33% 15% 2% 0% 3% 3.29 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 47% 30% 17% 2% 3% 2% 3.17 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.28 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 45% 27% 17% 10% 0% 2% 3.08 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 45% 27% 15% 8% 3% 2% 3.03 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 57% 17% 12% 3% 5% 7% 3.25 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 53% 27% 8% 5% 2% 5% 3.32 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 23% 8% 2% 0% 0% 3.55 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 35% 3% 3% 0% 8% 3.44 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.50 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 20% 5% 2% 0% 0% 3.65 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 77% 18% 3% 2% 0% 0% 3.70 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 55% 20% 18% 3% 3% 0% 3.20 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 22% 18% 3% 3% 2% 3.17 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.43 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 43% 22% 28% 5% 2% 0% 3.00 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 60% 28% 8% 2% 2% 0% 3.43 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 65% 23% 7% 2% 0% 3% 3.57 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.33 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Kerns Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 27% Completely neutral 55% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 3% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% 56% Recommend retain 23% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% 8% Recommend not retain 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 78% 80% Neither 12% 8% Total Not Retain 10% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.32 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.41 case after trial. 3.44 3.23 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.29 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.17 3.28 3.17 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.08 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.03 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.25 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 3.32 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.50 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.55 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.44 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.43 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.65 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.70 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.20 neutral manner. 3.28 3.17 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.33 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.00 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.43 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.57 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 10% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 25% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 55% Completely Neutral 46% 7% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 3% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? 55% Strongly recommend retain 56% 23% Recommend retain 24% 12% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Judge Kerns Judges* Total Retain 78% 80% 5% Neither 12% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 10% 11% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Timothy G. Kerns All District No Timothy G. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Kerns = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Kerns Judge Kerns in terms of overall performance as a judge. 0% 19% 0% 0% 0% 81% 3.00 3.46 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy GG.. KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 229944)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Sample Size = 294 A B C D Fail DK/NA Kerns Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 83% 14% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 13% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3.80 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 82% 14% 2% 0% 1% 0% 3.78 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 83% 12% 2% 0% 1% 2% 3.78 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.79 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 83% 13% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.80 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 84% 11% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.79 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 59% 6% 2% 0% 0% 32% 3.81 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 13% 2% 1% 1% 4% 3.77 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.79 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 13% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.78 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 83% 14% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.79 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 13% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.81 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.79 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 72% 19% 6% 1% 0% 2% 3.66 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 15% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.80 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 74% 15% 3% 1% 1% 8% 3.73 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 79% 13% 3% 0% 1% 4% 3.77 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 19% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.66 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.72 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 75% 16% 3% 0% 1% 6% 3.74 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 72% 10% 2% 0% 1% 13% 3.76 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 78% 13% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3.76 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.75 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.77 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Timothy G. Kerns Timothy G. All District Kerns Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 4% 8% Competely neutral 89% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.01 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 4% 8% Competely neutral 81% 82% Lenient sentencing total 13% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.04 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 81% 75% Recommend retain 13% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 4% Total Retain 94% 88% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 1% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.77 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.79 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.80 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.80 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.78 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.78 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.79 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.80 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.79 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.81 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.77 or her case. 3.70 3.79 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.78 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.79 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.72 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.66 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.80 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.73 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.77 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.66 little wasted time. 3.61 3.75 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.74 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.76 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.76 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.01 Timothy G. Kerns 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.04 Timothy G. Kerns 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Timothy G. Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? 81% Strongly recommend retain 75% 13% Recommend retain 13% 5% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 6% Judge Kerns Judges* 0% Total Retain 94% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy G. Kerns All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 15 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-seven appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 19 ## Page 23 e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sixteen questionnaires were returned, though not all 16 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. 21 ## Page 25 The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey 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 and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Kerns is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding District Judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Timothy G. Kerns Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 73 43 10 0 20 31.7% Defense Attorneys 101 50 8 0 43 46.2% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 175 94 18 0 63 40.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 331 169 53 12 97 34.9% Law Enforcement 52 26 13 0 13 33.3% Defendant 395 194 177 1 23 10.6% Civil Litigant 3 2 0 0 1 33.3% Jurors 292 116 16 8 152 55.1% Employees, including Interpreters 16 7 1 0 8 53.3% Total Non-attorneys 1089 514 260 21 294 35.5% Grand Total: 1264 608 278 21 357 36.2% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3105 1702 353 0 1050 38.2% Defense Attorneys 4381 2309 386 0 1686 42.2% Other Attorneys Criminal 164 88 10 0 66 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3667 1426 237 0 2004 58.4% Other Attorneys Civil 4136 1945 378 0 1813 48.2% GAL 34 11 2 0 21 65.6% Total Attorneys 15487 7481 1366 0 6640 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 55 28 18 0 9 24.3% Witness 5936 3024 1701 304 907 21.4% Other 58 32 13 3 10 22.2% Law Enforcement 5118 2861 1236 140 881 22.7% Defendant 17993 7871 8866 117 1139 12.5% Civil Litigant 8137 4580 1905 149 1503 24.1% Witness 122 51 34 3 34 38.6% Other 221 78 56 8 79 47.9% Jurors 17789 7033 1065 254 9437 56.4% Employees, including Interpreters 1120 450 172 21 477 50.3% Probation Officers 65 19 0 5 41 63.1% Total Non-attorneys 56614 26027 15066 1004 14517 34.9% Grand Total: 72101 33508 16432 1004 21157 38.0% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6640 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 6% 2% 1% 20% 3.44 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 26% 9% 3% 2% 12% 3.30 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 4% 3% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 10% 6% 6% 24% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 26% 11% 5% 4% 14% 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.50 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 10% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 5% 5% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3.34 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 18% 6% 3% 2% 15% 3.43 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 80% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14517 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 10% 3% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.66 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.68 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.69 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 71% 19% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.61 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.67 4d.Being prepared for cases. 80% 10% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 13% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.63 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 9% 2% 1% 2% 17% 3.67 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 11% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges* DK/ Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014. 23% 16% 2% 1% 0% 58% Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] 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. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 35 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 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 number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). 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 understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 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 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last 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 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 38 Using a grade scale, where an “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 circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Randall C. Arp ............... A B C D F Barbara L. Hughes ........ A B C D F Jack W. Berryhill............ A B C D F Thomas K. Kane ........... A B C D F Margie L. Enquist .......... A B C D F Thomas L. Kennedy ...... A B C D F Ann Gail Meinster .......... A B C D F Michael P. McHenry ...... A B C D F Lily W. Oeffler ................ A B C D F David Prince .................. A B C D F Tamara S. Russell ......... A B C D F Gregory R. Werner........ A B C D F Chistopher C. Zenisek ... A B C D F 5th Judicial District 2nd Judicial District Frederick W. Gannett .... A B C D F Martin F. Egelhoff .......... A B C D F Russell H. Granger ....... A B C D F J. Eric Elliff ..................... A B C D F Mark D. Thompson ....... A B C D F A. Bruce Jones .............. A B C D F 6th Judicial District Elizabeth Leith ............... A B C D F Suzanne F. Carlson ...... A B C D F John W. Madden, IV ...... A B C D F 7th Judicial District Robert L. McGahey, Jr. . A B C D F Mary Deganhart ............ A B C D F Sheila A. Rappaport ...... A B C D F Charles R. Greenacre ... A B C D F Elizabeth A. Starrs ........ A B C D F J. Steven Patrick ........... A B C D F Michael J. Vallejos ........ A B C D F James W. Schum .......... A B C D F 4th Judicial District 8th Judicial District William B. Bain .............. A B C D F Julie Kunce Field........... A B C D F Edward S. Colt, II .......... A B C D F Thomas R. French ........ A B C D F Jann P. DuBois.............. A B C D F Stephen E. Howard ....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 39 9th Judicial District No Grade 20th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Denise Lynch................. A B C D F Ingrid S. Bakke .............. A B C D F 10th Judicial District Maria E. Berkenkotter ... A B C D F William D. Alexander ..... A B C D F Patrick D. Butler ............ A B C D F Victor I. Reyes ............... A B C D F Judith L. LaBuda ........... A B C D F Andrew R. Macdonald .. A B C D F 11th Judicial District David M. Thorson .......... A B C D F 21st Judicial District David A. Bottger ............ A B C D F 12th Judicial District Thomas M. Deister........ A B C D F Michael A. Gonzales ..... A B C D F Brian J. Flynn ................ A B C D F 13th Judicial District 22nd Judicial District Kevin L. Hoyer ............... A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F Douglas R. Vannoy ....... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Shelley A. Hill ................ A B C D F 17th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr. A B C D F sheet for comments you would like to make John E. Popovich, Jr. .... A B C D F about any of these district judges. Ted C. Tow, III ............... A B C D F Mark D. Warner ............. A B C D F Francis C. Wasserman .. A B C D F Craig R. Welling ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Michelle A. Amico .......... A B C D F F. Stephen Collins ......... A B C D F Paul A. King................... A B C D F Charles M. Pratt ............ A B C D F Gerald J. Rafferty .......... A B C D F Theresa M. Slade .......... A B C D F Elizabeth B. Volz ........... A B C D F John L. Wheeler ............ A B C D F Vincent R. White ........... A B C D F 19th Judicial District Timothy G. Kerns .......... A B C D F Marcelo Kopcow ............ A B C D F 2 ## Page 40 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 41 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4
• 2010 cycle
  • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TTiimmootthhyy KKeerrnnss 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Timothy Kerns Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Kerns: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance 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 for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades 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. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided 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), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Timothy Kerns September 24, 2009 Page 2 Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2299)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Timothy Kerns All County Sample Size = 29 A B C D Fail DK/NA Timothy Kerns Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 59% 31% 0% 0% 0% 10% 3.65 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 31% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3.54 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 24% 3% 0% 0% 21% 3.61 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 21% 10% 0% 0% 7% 3.56 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.59 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 61% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.61 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 69% 28% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3.59 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 45% 31% 7% 0% 0% 17% 3.46 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 57% 26% 0% 0% 0% 17% 3.68 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.59 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 62% 31% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.55 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 40% 30% 0% 0% 0% 30% 3.57 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.56 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 86% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 79% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.79 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 76% 21% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.72 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 72% 17% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3.64 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.75 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 62% 31% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.55 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 66% 24% 3% 0% 0% 7% 3.67 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 66% 17% 3% 0% 0% 14% 3.72 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.65 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Timothy Kerns All County Timothy Kerns Judges Sample Size = 29 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 38% 30% Completely neutral 56% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 6% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 4% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 7% Total Retain 93% 86% Total Not Retain 8% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 4% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 7% Total Retain 93% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.63 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.59 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.65 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.54 proceedings. 3.40 3.61 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.56 3.35 3.59 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.61 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.59 3.15 3.46 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.68 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 3.56 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.55 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.57 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy Kerns All County Judges J 20u09d Ingteerim T Juidmiciaol Ptehrfoyrm Kancee rSnurvsey 4 ## Page 8 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.75 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.83 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 3.79 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.72 in a neutral manner. 3.20 3.64 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 3.65 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.55 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.67 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.72 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 38% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 56% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 6% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 4% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Kerns Judges 4% Total Retain 93% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 14% 7% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 4% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Kerns Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 93% 81% Undecided 0% 5% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 13% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 115588)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Timothy Kerns All County Sample Size = 158 A B C D Fail DK/NA Timothy Kerns Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 23% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.68 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 78% 17% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 77% 17% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3.69 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 20% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.63 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3.76 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 17% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3.63 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 45% 11% 3% 1% 1% 40% 3.61 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 17% 4% 1% 1% 4% 3.70 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.68 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 15% 3% 2% 1% 1% 3.69 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 17% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 83% 13% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.81 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 61% 23% 11% 2% 0% 3% 3.47 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 15% 3% 1% 0% 3% 3.75 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 18% 5% 1% 0% 19% 3.61 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 69% 18% 3% 2% 1% 7% 3.64 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 22% 8% 2% 1% 3% 3.49 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.59 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 19% 6% 1% 2% 8% 3.52 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 62% 14% 5% 1% 2% 17% 3.60 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 19% 3% 3% 1% 9% 3.55 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.56 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.65 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Timothy Kerns All County Timothy Kerns Judges Sample Size = 158 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% 14% Competely neutral 83% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.06 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 15% 16% Competely neutral 80% 73% Lenient sentencing total 5% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.33 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 91% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 2% 7% Total Retain 97% 90% Total Not Retain 3% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 2% 6% Total Retain 88% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 9% Total Not Retain 3% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.65 Overall Average Grade 3.49 3.68 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.68 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.72 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.69 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.63 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 3.68 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.76 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.63 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.61 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.70 or her case. 3.52 3.74 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.69 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.71 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy Kerns All County Judges J20u09d Ingtereim TJuidmicialo Pterhfoyrm aKncee Srunrvsey 10 ## Page 14 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.59 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.47 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.75 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.61 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.64 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.49 little wasted time. 3.43 3.56 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.52 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.60 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.55 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.06 Timothy Kerns 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.33 Timothy Kerns 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Timothy Kerns All County Judges Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Kerns Judges Total Retain 97% 90% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 3% 10% 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 9% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Kerns Judges Total Retain 88% 82% 1% Undecided 9% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 3% 9% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Kerns. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: 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. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey 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 estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Kerns is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Timothy Kerns Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 17 13 1 0 3 18.8% Defense Attorneys 8 4 0 0 4 50.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 40 18 5 0 17 48.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 1 1 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 18 12 1 0 5 29.4% Total Attorneys 85 48 8 0 29 37.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 21 10 8 1 2 15.4% Other 10 4 6 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 48 16 13 0 19 54.3% Defendant 275 156 78 2 39 19.8% Civil Litigant 23 15 6 0 2 11.8% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 209 94 15 4 96 49.5% Total Non-attorneys 587 296 126 7 158 34.3% Grand Total: 672 344 134 7 187 34.8% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 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 number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). 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 understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 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 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last 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 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TTiimmootthhyy KKeerrnnss 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Timothy Kerns Weld County Courthouse P.O. Box 2038 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Judge Kerns: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, and second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Timothy Kerns March 30, 2010 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 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Timothy Kerns an overall average grade1 of 3.63, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Kerns an overall average grade of 3.67 resulting in a combined grade of 3.65. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Kerns Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.65 3.63 3.67 Sample Size - 38 222 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Kerns’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Kerns Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.58 3.61 3.48 3.54 3.58 3.68 3.68 Sample Size - - - 0 19 19 39 87 96 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 County judges who were appointed between 2007 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Kerns’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Kerns Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.81 3.44 Percent of Sample 64% 36% Sample Size 141 81 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Kerns’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3388)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Timothy Kerns All County Sample Size = 38 A B C D Fail DK/NA Timothy Kerns Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 61% 29% 0% 0% 0% 11% 3.68 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 32% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3.57 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 55% 24% 3% 0% 0% 18% 3.65 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 24% 8% 3% 0% 5% 3.50 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.60 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 41% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.59 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 71% 26% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3.63 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 45% 29% 5% 0% 0% 21% 3.50 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 57% 27% 0% 0% 0% 17% 3.68 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.60 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 29% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.61 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 38% 31% 3% 0% 0% 28% 3.48 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.55 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 82% 16% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.79 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 79% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.79 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 26% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.68 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 71% 21% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3.65 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.73 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 61% 32% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.53 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 66% 26% 3% 0% 0% 5% 3.67 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 63% 18% 3% 0% 0% 16% 3.72 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Timothy Kerns All County Timothy Kerns Judges Sample Size = 38 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 29% Completely neutral 65% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 89% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 94% 87% Total Not Retain 6% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 89% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 94% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 6% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.63 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.60 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.68 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.57 proceedings. 3.43 3.65 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.50 3.37 3.60 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.59 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.63 3.13 3.50 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.68 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 3.55 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.61 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.48 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy Kerns All County Judges J 2u01d0 Jgudeici aTl Piemrforomtanhcey S uKrveeyr Rnepsort 6 ## Page 10 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.73 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.79 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 3.79 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.68 in a neutral manner. 3.23 3.65 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.64 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.53 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.67 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.72 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 30% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 65% Completely Neutral 48% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain 71% 5% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Kerns Judges 3% Total Retain 94% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 13% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain 67% 5% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Kerns Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 94% 82% Undecided or DK 0% 5% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 13% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy KKeerrnnss ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Timothy Kerns All County Sample Size = 222 A B C D Fail DK/NA Timothy Kerns Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 21% 3% 0% 0% 1% 3.70 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 15% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3.76 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 17% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 72% 19% 5% 0% 1% 2% 3.65 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.71 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 13% 3% 1% 0% 2% 3.76 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 75% 16% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 9% 3% 0% 1% 35% 3.67 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 75% 17% 4% 0% 0% 3% 3.71 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.70 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 14% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3.70 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 4% 0% 0% 1% 3.73 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 85% 12% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.81 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.75 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 64% 21% 10% 2% 0% 2% 3.49 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 15% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.77 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 17% 5% 1% 0% 17% 3.62 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 72% 17% 2% 1% 1% 6% 3.69 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 21% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.54 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.62 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 16% 6% 1% 2% 9% 3.57 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 65% 12% 5% 0% 2% 16% 3.62 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 66% 17% 3% 2% 2% 9% 3.58 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Timothy Kerns All County Timothy Kerns Judges Sample Size = 222 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% 14% Competely neutral 83% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.07 0.14 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% 13% Competely neutral 81% 74% Lenient sentencing total 7% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.26 0.11 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 91% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Total Retain 97% 91% Total Not Retain 4% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 83% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 6% Total Retain 89% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 9% Total Not Retain 3% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.67 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.71 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.70 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.76 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.73 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.65 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.70 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.76 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.64 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.67 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.71 or her case. 3.55 3.75 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.70 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.73 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy Kerns All County Judges J20u10d Jugdiecia lT Peimrformoatnhcey S uKrveey Rrnepsort 12 ## Page 16 Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.62 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 3.49 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.77 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.62 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.69 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.54 little wasted time. 3.45 3.59 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.62 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.58 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.07 Timothy Kerns 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.26 Timothy Kerns 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Timothy Kerns All County Judges Judge Timothy Kerns Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Kerns be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Kerns Judges Total Retain 97% 91% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 4% 9% 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 8% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Kerns Judges Total Retain 89% 83% 2% Undecided 8% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 3% 9% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy Kerns All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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 justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. 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 justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey 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 and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Kerns is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non- attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge Timothy Kerns Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 31 26 1 0 4 13.3% Defense Attorneys 97 64 5 0 28 30.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 16 11 2 0 3 21.4% Other Attorneys Civil 8 5 0 0 3 37.5% Total Attorneys 152 106 8 0 38 26.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 42 18 13 2 9 31.0% Other 10 4 6 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 51 19 13 0 19 50.0% Defendant 348 191 105 3 49 20.2% Civil Litigant 26 17 7 0 2 10.5% Witness 4 3 0 0 1 25.0% Jurors 307 139 21 6 141 49.3% Employees 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 790 392 165 11 222 35.5% Grand Total: 942 498 173 11 260 33.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. None of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 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 number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). 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 understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 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 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last 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 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page

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

• 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026