← All judges

O. John Kuenhold

Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa

Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2008 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Reports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Chief Judge O. John Kuenhold BE RETAINED. Judge Kuenhold was appointed as a District Court Judge in1981 and has been Chief Judge of the Twelfth Judicial District since 2004. He is the Water Judge for Water Division 3 (Rio Grande Basin). Judge Kuenhold received his law degree from the University of Michigan in1969, the same year he was admitted to the Colorado Bar. He worked for Colorado Rural Legal Services for five years before entering private practice. From his offices in Alamosa County, Judge Kuenhold sits in all six counties that comprise the Twelfth Judcial District, hearing appeals from county court and holds hearings on cases arising under criminal, civil, juvenile, domestic relations, mental health and water law. As Chief Judge, Judge Kuenhold coordinates case load and is the final arbiter in the administration of the judges in this district. The types of cases personally handled are civil, criminal, juvenile, and domestic. Judge Kuenhold is the most experienced and primary Water Court judge. Judge Kuenhold currently serves on the followingSupreme Court and State Court Administrator Committees: Water Court Committee of theSupreme Court , Treatment Court Advisory Committee, Website Rebuild/redesign Committee, JBITS (information technology) Advisory Committee, Caseload Management Standards Committee, JPOD (Judicial Paper-on-Demand) Design Team, and Court Reporter and Digital Recording Committee. Judge Kuenhold is a member and the Chairperson of the Colorado State Community Corrections Advisory Council and has served in that capacity for over twenty years for four Governors. He has been a frequent presenter at judicial conferences inColorado on subjects from technology, case and work-flow management and evidence. Judge Kuenhold has distinguished himself with detailed research providing thoughtful, thorough analysis of the science and history of water availability and usage in the upperRio GrandeRiver and theSan Luis Valley . This landmark work is crucial to the sustained agricultural viability of this area and ongoing mutual benefit of neighboring states balancing economic and ecologic concerns. Judge Kuenhold was a nominee to theSupreme Court of Colorado in1995. He was recognized by the Colorado Judiciary as the Outstanding Judicial Officer in 2006. In compliance with Colorado Revised Statutes the Judicial Performance Commission has reviewed the results of professionally conducted surveys of attorneys and non-attorneys, conducted in court observations, held public hearings, solicited public written comments and conducted a personal interview of Judge Kuenhold. Judge Kuenhold received above average to high scores from attorneys and non-attorneys who were surveyed. Additionally, Judge Kuenhold received a higher than average rating for overall performance on the Appellate Survey. Recommendations for retention from those surveyed were approximately 87% for retention.
  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge O. John Kuenhold BE RETAINED. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Kuenhold completed by individuals appearing in his courtroom, considered Judge Kuenhold’s written self-evaluation that included two of his written opinions, held three public hearings and conducted a personal interview with the judge. Judge Kuenhold was appointed to the Twelfth Judicial District Court in February 1981. Prior to his appointment, Judge Kuenhold practiced law in the San Luis Valley, both in private practice and for Colorado Rural Legal Services. Judge Kuenhold received his undergraduate degree from Colgate University and his law degree from the University of Michigan. Judge Kuenhold is highly respected by both attorneys and non-attorneys, receiving A’s from attorneys in 21 of the survey’s 25 categories. Judge Kuenhold received particularly high ratings in the areas of judicial temperament and communication, achieving ratings 20% to 30% higher than the state average for district judges in many of the survey’s categories. Judge Kuenhold is known for his intellectual abilities and knowledge of the law, which was noted frequently by both attorneys and non-attorneys in the survey results. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 97% recommend retention and 3% had no opinion. Eighty-nine percent of the non-attorneys recommended retention, 6% recommended non-retention and 4% had no opinion. Judge Kuenhold’s interests off the bench equally demonstrate his commitment to excellence in the court system. He is a frequent presenter at both state and national judicial education programs, and will be teaching in the National Judicial College’s new judge orientation program in the coming years. In 1996, Judge Kuenhold initiated the Colorado Courts website, dedicating thousands of personal hours to its development. The site is now the single most important source of information for the public regarding the courts, providing information, on-line forms and research materials. The site is now the State Court Administrator’s official web site, with Judge Kuenhold continuing to serve as web-master.
  • 1996 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 77.3% yes
    11,280 yes · 3,313 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge O. John Kuenhold BE RETAINED. Judge Kuenhold was appointed as a District Court Judge in 1981. Judge Kuenhold received his law degree from the University of Michigan in 1969, the same year he was admitted to the Colorado Bar. HE worked for Colorado Rural Legal Services and was in private practice before his judicial appointment. In 1995 Judge Kuenhold was one of the top three candidates nominated for appointment to the Supreme Court of Colorado. Judge Kuenhold continually involves himself in a variety of community activities, especially those involving children. From offices in Alamosa County, Kuenhold sits in all six counties that compromise the 12th Judicial District, hearing appeals from county court and cases arising under criminal law, juvenile, domestic relations, and mental health law. A survey of law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and court personnel credited Judge Kuenhold with a superior performance, commending him for his fairness and his knowledge of the law. On occasion, required hearing arise under juvenile and domestic relations law have resulted in delays to hearings in other counties. He proposes to remedy this problem by better scheduling. The Judicial Performance Commission found Kuenhold to be zealous about his duties and commented favorably on his patience and impartiality.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Alamosa · Alamosa
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Kuenhold was appointed as a district court judge in 1981. He received his law degree from the University of Michigan in 1969 and was admitted to practice law in Colorado that same year. His previous legal experience includes work with Colorado Rural Legal Services and private practice. Kuenhold presides over criminal and civil cases, juvenile proceedings, domestic relations, probate cases, child custody matters, mental health inquires and appeals from county court. He is a circuit judge who sit is all six counties in the 12th Judicial District. His office is in Alamosa. All of the different groups responding to the survey gave Kuenhold high ratings. Attorneys found him to be knowledgeable in the law and thorough in his legal opinions. Jurors and litigants found him to be unbiased, courteous and dignified. Probation, law enforcement and social services also rated him high. Several respondents criticized him for not being punctual and Kuenhold acknowledged in his interview with the committee that his is a problem for a circuit judge. A few respondents felt he was arrogant. Kuenhold was very concerned that anyone would perceive him this way as he tries to be open and receptive to all. The committee found Kuenhold to be a thoughtful and caring judge. He is active in professional activities and he served as faculty for various judicial conferences. He is sensitive to the changing needs of rural courts.

Surveys & reports

  • 2008 cycle
    • 2008 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.

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable O. John Kuenhold Alamosa County Courthouse 702 4th St., District Court Alamosa, CO 81101 Dear Judge Kuenhold: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable O. John Kuenhold Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 93% 65% 65% B 3% 20% 21% C 6% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average Grade 4.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 60% 61% B 13% 22% 22% C 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 43% 48% B 3% 13% 14% C 4% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 23% 37% 29% Average Grade 4.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 90% 61% 63% B 3% 11% 12% C 3% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 7% 24% 19% Average Grade 4.0 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 83% 65% 66% B 10% 12% 14% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 14% 12% Average Grade 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 64% 66% B 7% 12% 13% C 3% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 7% 18% 15% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 64% 65% B 7% 12% 13% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 15% 13% Average Grade 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 61% 60% B 13% 17% 17% C 3% 8% 8% D 4% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 10% 6% 5% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 47% 51% B 3% 10% 11% C 3% 3% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 27% 38% 31% Average Grade 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 61% 59% B 30% 10% 12% C 3% 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 23% 21% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 42% 37% B 17% 23% 23% C 9% 9% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 20% 21% 27% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 87% 55% 54% B 7% 27% 28% C 9% 9% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.9 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 54% 54% B 10% 25% 26% C 3% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 90% 64% 64% B 3% 20% 21% C 6% 7% D 3% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 7% 3% 3% Average Grade 4.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 57% 57% B 10% 22% 22% C 3% 8% 8% D 4% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 7% 5% 4% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 45% 46% B 37% 27% 27% C 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 13% 9% 8% Average Grade 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 55% 54% B 27% 28% 28% C 10% 8% 9% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on using court time efficiently? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 54% 54% B 27% 26% 25% C 10% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 7% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 59% 58% B 13% 22% 23% C 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 49% 49% B 13% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 17% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 32% 33% B 10% 13% 13% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 43% 46% 45% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 90% 57% 53% B 3% 24% 25% C 8% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% 7% Average Grade 4.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 49% 49% B 23% 25% 25% C 3% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 7% 11% 13% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 45% 44% B 23% 29% 29% C 7% 11% 12% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 7% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.6 3.1 3.1 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 51% 50% B 17% 20% 20% C 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 17% 16% 15% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge O. John Kuenhold Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Kuenhold be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 97% 85% 84% Do not retain in office 10% 11% No opinion 3% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 68% 67% B 21% 19% 19% C 4% 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 44% 47% B 18% 14% 15% C 4% 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 35% 30% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 68% 65% B 18% 14% 14% C 5% 3% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 4% 13% 14% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 70% 67% B 19% 15% 16% C 5% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 8% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 70% 67% B 18% 15% 16% C 4% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 4% 1% 2% No Grade 4% 9% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 69% 66% B 17% 15% 15% C 5% 4% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 2% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 68% 65% B 18% 15% 16% C 8% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 5% 4% 4% No Grade 1% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 40% 43% B 18% 11% 12% C 4% 3% 4% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 20% 44% 37% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 66% 63% B 17% 16% 16% C 8% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 4% 9% 11% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 75% 72% 70% B 18% 18% 19% C 4% 5% 6% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 71% 69% B 17% 18% 18% C 6% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 74% 72% B 16% 15% 16% C 4% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 68% 66% B 16% 16% 17% C 4% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 57% 56% B 25% 21% 22% C 8% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on starting court on time? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 59% 57% B 22% 22% 23% C 15% 8% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on being prepared for cases? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 66% 64% B 19% 17% 18% C 5% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 63% 62% B 19% 15% 16% C 4% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 4% No Grade 5% 11% 11% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 69% 67% B 14% 14% 16% C 3% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 64% 62% B 21% 17% 18% C 6% 5% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Kuenhold on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 57% 55% B 18% 13% 14% C 7% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 9% 22% 22% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge O. John Kuenhold Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Kuenhold be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Kuenhold Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 89% 85% 83% Do not retain in office 6% 7% 8% No opinion 4% 8% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge O. John Kuenhold Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 5 2 3 40.0% Attorney For Defendant 15 9 3 1 2 75.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 31 19 10 1 1 65.5% Guardian ad Litem 3 1 2 Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 54 30 17 4 3 63.8% Law Enforcement 12 7 1 3 1 87.5% Social Services Caseworker 5 4 1 100.0% Employee 34 22 11 1 66.7% Defendant 127 20 62 41 4 24.4% Plaintiff 99 22 48 24 5 31.4% Juror 50 26 21 3 55.3% Victim 20 2 10 4 4 16.7% Other 23 11 8 2 2 57.9% Sub Total: 370 114 161 75 20 41.5% Total: 424 144 178 79 23 44.7% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 12

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