Ben L. Leutwyler III

Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2024 retention cycle
Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe
Commission vote: 7 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 64.0% yes
283,264 yes · 159,255 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 7-0, with three commissioners absent from voting, that Judge Ben L. Leutwyler III MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Leutwyler presides over civil matters in Arapahoe County, Colorado. Judge Leutwyler’s strengths include his passion for the law, his judicial demeanor, and his work ethic. As described by those that interact with him, he is patient and respectful, knowledgeable in the law, well-prepared, dependable, fair, and he conducts himself professionally at all times. Commission members observed these qualities in him during his personal interview and while observing him in court proceedings. Judge Leutwyler works to continuously improve the management of his docket in an effort to increase efficiency. He strives for balanced sentencing, utilizing plain and easy to understand language in rulings, and equity in his decisions. He uses the knowledge gained in these reviews to refine his judicial officer skills and written decisions. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Leutwyler meets performance standards. The Commission met with Chief Judge Michelle A. Amico to discuss her interactions with Judge Leutwyler, as well as with members of the District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office and the Probation Office, to discuss their impressions of Judge Leutwyler’s performance. The Commission members also conducted a personal interview with Judge Leutwyler, observed him during court proceedings, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys that interacted with him in his courtroom. The surveys reflected personal opinions on Judge Leutwyler’s Case Management, Application and Knowledge of the Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor, and Fairness. Of the thirty-nine (39) completed surveys returned, Judge Leutwyler achieved an overall performance rating of 3.2 of a possible 4.0. His ratings for meeting performance standards from attorneys was 80%, and 75% from non-attorneys.
2018 retention cycle
Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 74.5% yes
266,769 yes · 91,410 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) agrees that Judge Ben L. Leutwyler III MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Leutwyler was appointed to the District Court on July 1, 2016. Judge Leutwyler received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Iowa in 1983 and earned his law degree from Georgia State University College of Law in 1990. Prior to his appointment as a district court judge, he served as a magistrate in Arapahoe County where he presided over domestic relations and misdemeanor cases. While in private practice he handled criminal defense, domestic relations, and personal injury cases. He previously served as a prosecutor in the 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office and in the State of Georgia. He also served as a faculty member for the National College of District Attorneys. Judge Leutwyler is a member of the Board of Directors of the Arapahoe County Bar Association, co-chair of the Youth Education Committee, and supervises the Arapahoe County High School Mock Trial Tournament. The Commission conducted extensive research in making this recommendation, including the use of surveys, interviews of attorneys and non-attorneys who appear in his courtroom, review of his self-evaluation, observations in his courtroom by Commissioners, and review of opinions he authored. Thirteen attorneys and sixty-five non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Leutwyler’s performance. Among the survey questions was, “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Leutwyler meets judicial performance standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the surveys, 92% answered yes, that he met performance standards, 0% answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 8% expressed no opinion on whether or not Judge Leutwyler met performance standards. Of the non-attorneys surveyed, 97% answered yes, meets performance standards, 2% answered no, does not meet performance standards, and 2% had no opinion (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding). During the current term, Judge Leutwyler presided in primarily criminal cases. The surveys were overwhelmingly positive in all categories, with comments like “excellent job of understanding the law and issuing appropriate rulings.” It was mentioned many times that he is kind, very fair, respectful, intelligent, and even-keeled. Those on the Commission who observed the courtroom proceedings agreed that he was thoughtful and respectful to everyone. Therefore, the Commission unanimously agrees that Judge Ben Leutwyler meets performance standards.

Surveys & reports

2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ben Leutwyler 2021 Ju dicial Performance Survey Report District C ourt 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 . . 8 Case Management . . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 9 Communications. .10 Demeanor . .11 Diligence . .12 Fairness . .14 Survey of Appellate Judges . .15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .16 Methodology and How to Read Results . .16 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .19 Methodology and How to Read Results . .19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Leutwyler, 52 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 52 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 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Leutwyler All District Judges Judge Leutwyler All District Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 86% 87% 82% 80% 76% 60% 40% 18% 20% 14% 13% 13% 6% 5% 0% Judge Leutwyler All District Judges Judge Leutwyler All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Leutwyler Leutwyler Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 86% 82% 87% 76% standards No, does not meet 14% 13% 0% 18% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 13% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.4 3.7 Fairness 3.4 Judge Leutwyler All District Judges Judge All District Leutwyler Judges Case Management 3.5 3.4 Application and 3.4 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.5 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.7 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 47 24% 68% 32 Non-Attorneys 20 - - 20 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Leutwyler received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 6 ## Page 7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 7 ## Page 8 Detailed R eport Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Leutwyler Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Leutwyler Attorneys 3.5 Judge Leutwyler Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Leutwyler Leutwyler Leutwyler Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 30 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.7 38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.7 38 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 38 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Leutwyler Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Leutwyler Attorneys 3.2 Judge Leutwyler Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Leutwyler Leutwyler Leutwyler Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.7 47 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 29 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 27 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 29 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 28 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 16 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 17 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Leutwyler Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Leutwyler Attorneys 3.3 Judge Leutwyler Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Leutwyler Leutwyler Leutwyler Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 49 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 29 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 20 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Leutwyler Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Leutwyler Attorneys 3.2 Judge Leutwyler Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Leutwyler Leutwyler Leutwyler Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 49 Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.8 49 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.4 3 3.8 49 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 20 appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Leutwyler Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Leutwyler Attorneys 3.2 Judge Leutwyler Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Leutwyler Leutwyler Leutwyler Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 29 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 28 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 29 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 20 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 20 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 19 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 15 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 12 ## Page 13 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Leutwyler Leutwyler Leutwyler Non- Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Managing court proceedings so 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 20 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 13 ## Page 14 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Leutwyler Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Leutwyler Attorneys Judge Leutwyler Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Leutwyler District Judges J udge Leutwyler Judge Leutwyler Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 20 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.7 3.4 N/A 3.7 20 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 10 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 20 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 14 ## Page 15 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Leutwyler 8 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Leutwyler enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Leutwyler Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Leutwyler District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.6 3.6 8 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 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 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2 020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2 021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 16 ## Page 17 Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A 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 2020 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 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 interim. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 17 ## Page 18 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. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 8 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Leutwyler to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for interim. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2021. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses N ot Applicable Rate Attorney 193 47 0 32 68% Staff 5 0 5 - Others 67 4 0 15 - Total Non-Attorneys 67 9 - 20 - Total Respondents - 56 - 52 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben Leutwyler 20
- 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Be n L. Leutwyler 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Survey of Appellate Judges. . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - District Judge Survey by Appellate Judges. . 20 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Leutwyler, 40 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 40 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 1240 36 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 36 Non-attorney email Invite 46 3 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 1 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 4 Total N/A 40 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Leutwyler Overall Judge Leutwyler Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.2 39 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 80% 75% 24 3 standards No, does not meet performance 7% 25% 2 1 standards No opinion 13% 0% 4 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Leutwyler Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 2.9 Communications 3.4 Diligence 2.9 Demeanor 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Leutwyler Score Judge Number of Leutwyler Responses Score Case Management 3.1 38 Application and Knowledge of Law 2.9 37 Communications 3.4 34 Diligence 2.9 34 Demeanor 3.6 34 Fairness 3.5 33 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.1 Non-Attorneys 2.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 2.3 2.4 0.0 25 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.4 3.5 2.3 34 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 2.7 2.7 2.0 33 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.5 3.5 3.5 30 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.5 3.5 3.5 26 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.9 Attorneys 3.0 Non-Attorneys 2.1 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.0 3.1 2.3 36 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 2.9 2.9 N/A 33 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.1 3.1 N/A 16 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.0 3.0 N/A 29 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.1 3.1 N/A 30 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.0 3.0 N/A 30 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 2.7 N/A 2.7 3 Willing to make decisions without regard to 0.0 N/A 0.0 2 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 2.9 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.8 3.7 4.0 32 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 3.1 3.1 N/A 29 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.0 3.0 N/A 28 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.7 3.7 N/A 28 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.0 N/A 3.0 4 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 4.0 N/A 4.0 3 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 2.8 N/A 2.8 4 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.6 Attorneys 3.7 Non-Attorneys 3.0 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.8 3.9 3.0 33 Treats participants with respect. 3.8 3.9 3.0 34 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 3.7 3.7 N/A 25 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 3.2 3.2 N/A 27 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.8 3.8 N/A 28 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 3.0 N/A 3.0 4 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.9 Attorneys 3.0 Non-Attorneys 2.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 2.9 2.9 N/A 27 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 2.9 2.9 N/A 21 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.1 3.1 N/A 26 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 4.0 N/A 4.0 3 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.7 N/A 3.7 3 Is prepared for cases 4.0 N/A 4.0 3 Manages court proceedings so there is little 2.8 N/A 2.8 4 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.5 Attorneys 3.6 Non-Attorneys 2.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.0 N/A 3.0 4 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 2.0 N/A 2.0 4 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.0 N/A 3.0 4 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.0 N/A 3.0 4 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 3.6 3.6 N/A 27 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 3.5 3.5 N/A 29 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 3.6 3.6 N/A 23 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.6 3.6 N/A 25 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Leutwyler 6 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Leutwyler enough to evaluate their performance. 4.0 3.7 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Leutwyler Overall Judge Leutwyler Overall Number of Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.7 6 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Leutwyler, 40 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 40 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 14 ## Page 15 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 15 ## Page 16 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 16 ## Page 17 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 17 ## Page 18 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 18 ## Page 19 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. 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’s or justice’s written opinions). 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 are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Di strict Judge Survey by Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates Invitations were sent via email to all 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 6 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Leutwyler to evaluate their performance. B. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco® survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16, 2024. Reminders were sent on January 22 and January 29, 2024. C. Questions Due to the considerable number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A through F, with A being Excellent and F being Fail. To reduce bias in the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order. D. Analysis and Reporting For analysis, letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and F = 0. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average is reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question; that is, the percentage of respondents who assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. E. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Ben L. Leutwyler 20
2018 cycle
- 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  —
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  96%
  respondent count not on record
  Non-attorneys recommend
  97%
  respondent count not on record

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
2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026