Kimbra Leigh Killin

Trial Court · Phillips · Phillips

Meets Standards3 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2024 retention cycle
Trial Court · Phillips · Phillips
Commission vote: 7 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 86.1% yes
1,814 yes · 292 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: *Insufficient responses to publish Survey Reports Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 7-0, with two members absent and one vacancy, that Judge Kimbra Killin MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Killin was appointed to the Phillips County Court in May 2014. Judge Killin is a part-time county court judge. She currently hears misdemeanor, traffic and civil county court cases, and does assist other county judges with their dockets as needed. Based upon the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Killin has demonstrated that she meets performance standards in all categories (integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and public). Unfortunately, Judge Killin did not receive sufficient survey responses for the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation to publish a report. Judge Killin readily admits that the surveys would help with the outside perception of what she is doing. However, she balances the lack of surveys by talking with and getting feedback directly from attorneys. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Killin, reviewed a sample of her submitted decisions, and observed her in court. Judge Killin answered questions regarding her demeanor in court. Judge Killin has the attitude that people make mistakes. She doesn’t have any angst about people in court and when necessary, she slows things down and asks if they have questions. Judge Killin addresses folks by last name in order to demonstrate that they are on equal footing. Judge Killin stays up to date by utilizing a Listserv, asking opinions of other judges and ultimately finds the time to author updates to the Thirteenth Judicial District’s County Court Criminal Benchbook.
2020 retention cycle
Trial Court · Phillips · Phillips
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 86.5% yes
2,002 yes · 312 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Kimbra L. Killin MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Six members of the Commission voted that Judge Killin meets performance standards; no members voted that she does not meet performance standards (three members did not participate and there is one vacancy on the Commission). Judge Killin has been serving as the Phillips County Court Judge since May of 2014, with a docket consisting primarily of traffic, misdemeanor, civil, and small claims matters. This term, Judge Killin has continued to perform exceptionally well in all areas the Commission is tasked with evaluating. With respect to administrative performance and case management, she is diligent and efficient in managing her docket. As a part-time judge and practicing attorney, this is a balancing act that Judge Killin appears to manage well. She demonstrates willingness to invest the time and do the necessary “homework” that this position entails while still maintaining her legal practice. With respect to legal knowledge, her experience as an attorney and her six years of judicial experience provide a strong foundation, but as expected, she also participates in ongoing continuing education and training, and regularly monitors changes in the law. She has demonstrated a commitment to serving the legal profession and the public. Specifically, she devotes considerable time authoring the Thirteenth Judicial District Bench Book, which is a resource for judges. She also has been working to promote jury service locally, as Phillips County has experienced a higher number of jury trials than usual. Judge Killin’s judicial temperament and integrity continue to be exemplary. She consistently conducts herself in a professional and dignified manner and avoids the appearance of impropriety. She has a reputation of being fair and impartial. She communicates effectively both verbally and in writing. In short, Judge Killin is a well-rounded judicial officer for whom the Commission struggles to identify areas of weakness. The Commission strongly believes that Judge Killin meets performance standards and that she continues to be an asset to the Thirteenth Judicial District. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Killin. It also reviewed recordings of court proceedings; written materials, including a self-evaluation and orders issued; and survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had interaction with Judge Killin in court. While there were a limited number of survey responses (4), they did reflect notably strong performance in case management, application of the law, communication, fairness, demeanor and performance. While survey responses did not raise any notable concerns for the Commission, Judge Killin reflected upon some of them during her interview with the Commission. In doing so, she demonstrated her ability to accept feedback and willingness to adapt if warranted. In addition to serving as Phillips County Court Judge, Judge Killin is a practicing attorney and farmer. She is active in the community. She serves on the boards of two local scholarships and assists with career fairs and programs such as Every 5 Minutes.
2016 retention cycle
Trial Court · Park · Park
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 85.7% yes
1,851 yes · 309 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Thirteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0, with one Commissioner absent) recommends that Judge Kimbra Leigh Killin BE RETAINED. Judge Killin earned her Bachelor’s Degree from Regis University in 1990, where she graduated magna cum laude, and her Juris Doctor from the University of Denver in 1994. Judge Killin was appointed as Phillips County Court Judge in May of 2014. Her docket consists mostly of traffic, civil, and criminal matters. As a part-time judge, she continues to work as an attorney in private practice, to participate in management of the family farm and ranch businesses, and to serve on community boards, currently the Leland Trust and the Holyoke Schools Scholarship Trust. The Commission reviewed completed surveys from attorney and non-attorney respondents familiar with Judge Killin. Three attorneys and nineteen non-attorney respondents indicated that they had worked with her enough to evaluate her performance. All of the attorneys recommended retention; among non-attorneys, 84% recommended to retain and 16% had no opinion. In addition to the survey responses and comments, the Commission also reviewed the Judge’s Self-Evaluation, a sampling of her written rulings, and conducted courtroom observations and an interview with the Judge. When survey results were compared to all County Court Judges in Colorado, Judge Killin’s overall score in each of the following categories was above the state average: knowledge and application of the law, communication, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. Judge Killin scored slightly below the state average in the category of case management. Survey comments were overwhelmingly positive and reflected strength in the areas of legal research, preparedness, humility, communicating effectively with litigants who do not have an attorney, exhibiting a pleasant and respectful demeanor, professionalism, and educating herself on areas of the law with which she is less familiar. The Commission noted that, although Judge Killin did not have significant criminal law experience prior to her appointment, survey comments praised her for taking the initiative to educate herself in this area of the law and it appears that she has been successful in doing so. During her interview with the Commission, Judge Killin demonstrated an understanding of some of the cultural factors which impact cases before her and discussed the unique challenges of serving as a judicial officer in a small, rural community. It was apparent from her interview, courtroom observations, and survey comments that Judge Killin is mindful of setting appropriate boundaries in order to ensure the public’s confidence in the fairness, neutrality, and objectivity of the legal process, and that her familiarity with individuals in the community does not influence the way she treats them in the courtroom. While Judge Killin’s caring and approachable nature is a strength, courtroom observations suggested she might reinforce the public’s perception of the dignity of the court and the seriousness of its proceedings by increasing the formality of proceedings.

Surveys & reports

2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kimbra L. Killin 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .13 Methodology and How to Read Results .13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Killin, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 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 4 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Killin All County Judges Judge Killin All County Judges Overall Grade 4 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 100% 86% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 10% 5% 4% 0% Judge Killin All County Judges Judge Killin All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Killin Killin Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 100% 86% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 0% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Case Management 3.4 3.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 4.0 Communications 3.6 4.0 Diligence 3.5 3.9 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.5 Judge Killin All County Judges Judge All County Killin Judges Case 4.0 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.9 3.4 Law Communications 4.0 3.6 Diligence 4.0 3.5 Demeanor 3.9 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 7 70% 71% 5 Non- 13 5% 31% 4 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Killin received 1 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Killin Attorneys 4 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 4 3.5 4 N/A 5 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.4 4 N/A 5 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 4 3.4 4 N/A 5 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 4 N/A 5 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Overall 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Killin Attorneys 4 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys 3.9 County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 4 3.4 4 4 10 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 4 3.2 4 N/A 5 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 3.4 4 N/A 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 4 3.2 4 N/A 5 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 4 3.2 4 N/A 5 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.5 N/A 4 5 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 5 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Killin Attorneys 4 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys 4 County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 4 3.6 4 4 10 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 3.4 4 N/A 5 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.7 N/A 4 5 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4 5 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Score 3.9 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Killin Attorneys 4 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys 3.8 County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.9 3.6 4 3.8 10 Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.6 4 3.8 10 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.9 3.4 4 3.8 10 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.5 N/A 4 5 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Score 4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Killin Attorneys 4 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys 4 County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 3.2 4 N/A 5 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 4 3.5 4 4 10 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 4 3.5 4 N/A 5 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.6 N/A 4 5 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4 5 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4 5 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 5 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Killin Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Killin Attorneys Judge Killin Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Killin County Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 5 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.5 N/A 4.0 5 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.5 N/A 4.0 5 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 4 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Killin, 9 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 9 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 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% 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 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 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 June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 13 ## Page 14 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. 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 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 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 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 14 ## Page 15 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 10 7 0 5 71% Law Enforcement 6 1 0 0 0% Litigant 273 10 37 2 20% Juror 0 0 0 0 - Others 2 2 0 2 100% Total Non-Attorneys 281 13 37 4 31% Total Respondents 291 20 37 9 45% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 16
- 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.2
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  —
  8 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  —
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Kimbra L. Killin 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Killin, 4 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 4 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Killin All County Judges Judge Killin All County Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 94% 83% 80% 75% 60% 40% 25% 20% 13% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Killin All County Judges Judge Killin All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Killin Killin Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 75% 83% 94% standards No, does not meet 25% 13% 4% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.5 2.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 4.0 Communications 3.5 3.0 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 Fairness 3.8 Judge Killin All County Judges Judge All County Killin Judges Case 3.6 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 2.6 3.3 Law Communications 4.0 3.5 Diligence 3.0 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness - 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 8 53% 50% 4 Non- 0 - - 0 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Killin 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 Kimbra L. Killin 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Killin Attorneys 3.6 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.6 3.7 - 3 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.5 3.2 - 4 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.5 3.7 - 3 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.4 4 - 4 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Overall 2.6 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Killin Attorneys 2.6 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 2.8 3.4 2.8 N/A 4 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 2 3.2 2 N/A 4 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 4 similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.5 3.1 2.5 N/A 4 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.2 3.2 2.2 N/A 4 rules Giving reasons for rulings - 3.7 N/A - 0 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside - 3.7 N/A - 0 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Overall 4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Killin Attorneys 4 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 4 3.6 4 - 4 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 4 3.3 4 N/A 3 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone - 3.8 N/A - 0 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s - 3.8 N/A - 0 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Killin Attorneys 3.3 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.2 3.5 3.2 - 4 dignity Treating participants with 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 4 respect Conducting his/her courtroom in 3.2 3.3 3.2 - 4 a neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for - 3.8 N/A - 0 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Killin Score 3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Killin Attorneys 3 Judge Killin Non-Attorneys 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 11 ## Page 12 County Judge Killin Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A 4 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 4 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 2.8 3.3 2.8 N/A 4 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are - 3.6 N/A - 0 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time - 3.7 N/A - 0 Maintaining appropriate control - 3.7 N/A - 0 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for - 3.8 N/A - 0 cases Managing court proceedings so - 3.6 N/A - 0 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Killin Score County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Killin Attorneys Judge Killin Non-Attorneys Judge Killin County Judge Killin Judge Killin Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an - 3.8 N/A - 0 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved - 3.8 N/A - 0 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent - 3.8 N/A - 0 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her - 3.8 N/A - 0 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Killin, 4 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 4 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 Kimbra L. Killin 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 15 ## Page 16 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 15 8 0 4 50% Staff 1 0 0 0 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 1 0 0 0 - Total Respondents 16 8 0 4 50% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 17
2016 cycle
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Kimbra L. Killin 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 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 Kimbra L. Killin, 27 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 22 agreed they had worked with Judge Killin enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 22 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) 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 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.71 Attorneys 3.39 Total Non-Attorneys 3.76 Juror 3.91 Non-Attorney Other* 3.67 Table 1 Judge Kimbra L. Killin Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.71 3.39 3.76 3.91 3.67 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 86% Attorneys 100% Total Non-Attorneys 84% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 75% Table 2 Judge Kimbra L. Killin Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 86% 100% 84% 100% 75% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Kimbra L. Killin Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.25 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.33 3.65 3.81 3.56 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.50 3.86 3.90 3.83 Diligence 3.44 3.70 3.89 3.59 Demeanor 3.44 3.86 4.00 3.77 Fairness N/A 3.75 3.96 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 16 2 3 29% 25% Total Non- 190 36 19 15% 17% Attorneys Staff 2 0 2 100% 0% Jurors 25 0 7 28% 0% Other Non- 163 36 10 11% 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 **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 Kimbra L. Killin 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Killin, 4 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 3 agreed they had worked with Judge Killin enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 3 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 “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 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 Kimbra L. Killin 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 Kimbra L. Killin 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Kimbra L. Killin be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Kimbra L. Killin Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 67% 60% 40% 33% 20% 12% 8% 6% 8% 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 Killin All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 Killin 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 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.25 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 4.00 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.33 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.00 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 6 Case Management Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Killin Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 33% 33% 33% -- -- -- 3.00 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.25 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 Killin 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 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.33 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.33 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.00 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.67 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.00 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Killin Judges Being able to identify and analyze 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 33% 33% 33% -- -- -- 3.00 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 33% 33% 33% -- -- -- 3.00 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.33 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 Killin 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 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.50 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.33 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 8 Communications Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Killin Judges Making sure all participants 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.50 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 Killin 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 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 3.44 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 3.39 Treating participants with respect 3.67 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 9 Demeanor Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Killin Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 33% 67% -- -- -- -- 3.33 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.44 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 Killin 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 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.44 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.33 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.67 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.33 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 10 Diligence Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 3 Killin Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 33% 67% -- -- -- -- 3.33 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 67% 33% -- -- -- -- 3.67 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 67% -- 33% -- -- -- 3.33 3.37 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.44 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Killin in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 1 0.8 0.6 54% 0.4 28% 0.2 11% 6% 1% 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 Killin All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Kimbra L. Killin, 23 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 19 agreed they had worked with Judge Killin enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 19 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 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. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 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. 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 16 ## Page 19 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 are 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 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 Kimbra L. Killin 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Killin be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Kimbra L. Killin Total Retain 84% Neither 16% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 80% 71% 68% 60% 40% 16% 16% 16% 20% 5% 3% 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 Killin All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.86 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.74 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.89 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.89 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.89 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 12 Demeanor Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Killin Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.61 Treating participants with respect 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 84% 11% -- 5% -- -- 3.74 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.86 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.75 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.74 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.69 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.74 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.74 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 13 Fairness Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Killin Judges Giving participants an opportunity 84% 11% -- 5% -- -- 3.74 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 84% 11% -- 5% -- -- 3.74 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 58% 5% -- 5% -- 32% 3.69 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 84% 11% -- 5% -- -- 3.74 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.75 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.86 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.95 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.79 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.84 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 14 Communications Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Killin Judges Making sure all participants 84% 16% -- -- -- -- 3.84 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 79% 21% -- -- -- -- 3.79 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 95% 5% -- -- -- -- 3.95 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.86 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.70 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.58 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.69 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.79 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.84 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.58 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 15 Diligence Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Killin Judges Beginning court on time 74% 21% -- -- 5% -- 3.58 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 84% 16% -- -- -- -- 3.84 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 84% 11% 5% -- -- -- 3.79 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 67% 17% 6% -- -- 11% 3.69 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 74% 21% -- -- 5% -- 3.58 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.70 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.65 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.72 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.53 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Killin Table 16 Application of Law Judge Kimbra L. Killin All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 19 Killin Judges Giving reasons for rulings 68% 21% 5% -- -- 5% 3.67 3.56 Willing to make decision without 63% 5% 5% -- 5% 21% 3.53 3.54 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 74% 16% 5% -- -- 5% 3.72 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.65 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Killin is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Killin is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 80% 80% 74% 60% 40% 21% 20% 5% 4% 7% 5% 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 Killin All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 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 Killin are. If you feel Judge Killin generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 78% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 11% 11% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Killin All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Kimbra L. Killin 25

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026