David L. Lobato

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 71.1% yes

  41,409 yes · 16,796 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report Nine members of the Tenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agree that Judge David Lee Lobato MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. One member of the commission was recused. David Lobato was appointed to the Pueblo County Court bench by Governor John Hickenlooper in February of 2012 and began his service on March 2, 2012. Judge Lobato had been a Deputy State Public Defender in El Paso County from October 1994 to January 1995, and in Pueblo County from 1995 until his appointment to the bench. Judge Lobato received his undergraduate degree from the College of Santa Fe in 1982. In 1985, he received a Bachelor of Sacred Theology degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy and he studied moral theology at the Pontifical Alfonsian Academy in Rome from 1985-1987. Judge Lobato received his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1994. The commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Lobato, reviewed his judicial opinions and self-evaluation, performed extensive courtroom observations, interviewed local agencies and considered the results of the 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report and Case Management Reports. On the Judicial Performance Survey, all surveyed groups had a sufficient response rate from those who had experience with Judge Lobato. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 87% indicated that Judge Lobato meets performance standards, 7% indicated that he did not meet performance standards and 7% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 80% indicated that Judge Lobato meets performance standards, 11% indicated he did not meet performance standards and 9% had no opinion. Judge Lobato presided over misdemeanor and traffic cases during this term. His open caseload is greater than the established goals of completing 80% of all cases within six months. Judge Lobato offered reasonable explanations for this backlog, but he agreed that he is not unmindful that this situation needs improvement. In all major categories of the Judicial Performance Surveys, non-attorneys rated Judge Lobato slightly higher than attorneys. Attorneys generally found that he managed his cases well, has good application and knowledge of the law, communication skills, demeanor and diligence. Non-attorneys found him to have good knowledge and application of the law, as well as good communication skills and diligence. Commission members found courtroom observations generally corroborated these survey findings.  Although his attorney approval rating is impressive, some comments made in the survey suggested at times he demonstrated a lack of patience with young attorneys. Judge Lobato reflects daily on the need to be patient, fair and dignified in his courtroom demeanor. In his interview, Judge Lobato impressed the Commission that he enjoys his work and strives to be the best possible judge. He recognizes that there is room for improvement, and he will strive to be better.  Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Lobato meets or exceeds performance standards.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Pueblo · Pueblo

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 72.0% yes

  37,603 yes · 14,621 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The 10th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge David L. Lobato BE RETAINED. Judge Lobato was appointed to the Pueblo County Court bench in February of 2012.  Judge Lobato was a Deputy State Public Defender in El Paso and Pueblo Counties prior to his judicial appointment.  Judge Lobato received his undergraduate degree from the College of Santa Fe in 1982, he received a Bachelor of Sacred Theology degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy and he studied moral theology at the Pontifical Alfonsian Academy in Rome from 1985-1987.  Judge Lobato received his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1994.  Judge Lobato handles both a criminal and civil docket. The commission considered results from the Judicial Performance Survey, interviews with representatives from the District Attorney and Public Defender’s offices, as well as extensive courtroom observations, written opinions, and his individual interview with the commission.  Of attorneys responding, 94% recommended to retain, 2% recommended not to retain, and 4% made no recommendation.  Of non-attorneys responding, 88% recommended to retain, 3% recommended not to retain, and 8% made no recommendation. Judge Lobato was consistently commended for his judicial temperament.  His calm and even demeanor extends to all parties in his courtroom.  Judge Lobato is fair in his treatment of attorneys.  He is willing to listen to the parties and he makes fair and balanced decisions based on the merits of the case.  Judge Lobato has an excellent understanding and knowledge of the law and is consistent in his rulings.  He starts his dockets in a timely manner and is efficient.  Judge Lobato also takes the time to mentor the lawyers, who appear before him, by offering feedback.  The Commission believes that while the survey evaluation results were overwhelmingly positive, Judge Lobato still continues to be self-reflective and seeks ways to improve.  He is respectful, shows compassion, and has provided for a well-run courtroom in which people feel comfortable.

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable David L. Lobato 2017 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 . 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 David L. Lobato, 119 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 98 agreed they had worked with Judge Lobato enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 98 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 3.92 4 3.49 3.30 3.06 3 2.74 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge David L. Lobato Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.30 2.74 3.49 3.92 3.06 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 94% 79% 80% 68% 68% 60% 52% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge David L. Lobato Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 68% 52% 79% 94% 68% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge David L. Lobato Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.05 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.82 3.44 3.90 3.01 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.82 3.65 3.93 3.38 Diligence 2.73 3.55 3.91 3.19 Demeanor 2.31 3.40 3.94 2.85 Fairness N/A 3.39 3.90 2.88 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 111 0 32 29% 22% Total Non- 1045 94 87 8% 16% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 138 1 37 27% 3% Other Non- 907 93 50 6% 26% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lobato, 32 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 25 agreed they had worked with Judge Lobato enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 25 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 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge David L. Lobato be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge David L. Lobato Total Retain 52% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 36% Figure 3 100% 80% 60% 54% 40% 28% 28% 24% 22% 20% 12% 9% 7% 8% 9% 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 Lobato All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 Lobato 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 3.39 Case Management Overall Average 3.05 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.80 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.04 3.35 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.00 3.54 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.43 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 6 Case Management Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Lobato Number of Responses: 25 Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 44% 44% 4% -- -- 8% 3.43 3.54 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 36% 40% 12% 12% -- -- 3.00 3.35 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 40% 40% 8% 8% 4% -- 3.04 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for 28% 44% 16% 4% 8% -- 2.80 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.05 3.39 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 Lobato 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 3.13 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.82 3.07 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.88 3.08 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.44 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.19 are similar 2.77 3.08 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.80 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.08 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 25 Lobato Judges Being able to identify and analyze 32% 44% 24% -- -- -- 3.08 3.22 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 28% 44% 16% 4% 8% -- 2.80 3.08 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 26% 35% 26% 4% 4% 4% 2.77 3.19 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 24% 24% 32% 12% 8% -- 2.44 3.08 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 32% 40% 16% 8% 4% -- 2.88 3.07 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.82 3.13 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 Lobato 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 3.38 Communications Overall Average 2.82 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.27 thorough and well reasoned 2.64 Making sure all participants understand the 3.47 proceedings 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 8 Communications All Judge David L. Lobato Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Lobato Number of Responses: 25 Judges Making sure all participants 36% 36% 24% -- 4% -- 3.00 3.47 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 24% 28% 20% 12% 4% 12% 2.64 3.27 reasoned Communications Overall Average 2.82 3.38 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 Lobato 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 3.28 Demeanor Overall Average 2.31 3.15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.20 3.32 Treating participants with respect 2.16 3.37 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.56 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 9 Demeanor All Judge David L. Lobato Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Lobato Number of Responses: 25 Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 28% 32% 20% 8% 12% -- 2.56 3.37 dignity Treating participants with respect 20% 28% 12% 28% 12% -- 2.16 3.32 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 20% 24% 20% 28% 8% -- 2.20 3.15 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.31 3.28 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 Lobato 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 3.17 Diligence Overall Average 2.73 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.26 they are complicated and time consuming 2.58 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.22 for cases 2.87 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.08 and rules 2.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 10 Diligence Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 25 Lobato Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 24% 44% 24% 4% 4% -- 2.80 3.08 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 24% 44% 16% 4% 4% 8% 2.87 3.22 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 24% 28% 24% 20% -- 4% 2.58 3.26 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.73 3.17 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Lobato in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 52% 43% 40% 27% 19% 19% 20% 11% 14% 8% 5% 2% 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 Lobato All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge David L. Lobato, 87 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 73 agreed they had worked with Judge Lobato enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 73 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the tab le refer to the number of questions ask ed in each 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 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 16 ## Page 19 assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Lobato be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge David L. Lobato Total Retain 79% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 14% Figure 10 100% 80% 64% 61% 60% 40% 18% 17% 20% 8% 7% 11% 9% 3% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Lobato All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.40 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.35 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.42 3.38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 3.47 Treating participants with respect 3.40 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 12 Demeanor Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 72 Lobato Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 69% 15% 6% 4% 4% 1% 3.44 3.47 Treating participants with respect 74% 8% 10% 1% 7% -- 3.40 3.47 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 69% 17% -- 6% 8% -- 3.33 3.38 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 71% 13% 7% 3% 6% 1% 3.42 3.35 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.40 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 3.41 Fairness Overall Average 3.39 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.47 case 3.45 3.38 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.48 3.34 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.35 3.47 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.39 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 13 Fairness Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Lobato Number of Responses: 72 Judges Giving participants an opportunity 75% 11% 1% 4% 8% -- 3.39 3.47 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 71% 15% 1% 3% 10% -- 3.35 3.34 without bias Treating fairly people who 55% 10% 3% -- 6% 27% 3.48 3.38 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 72% 10% 7% 8% 1% 1% 3.45 3.47 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.39 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 3.60 Communications Overall Average 3.65 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.66 hear what’s being said 3.72 3.61 Using language that everyone can understand 3.60 3.54 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.64 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 14 Communications Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 72 Lobato Judges Making sure all participants 79% 13% 3% 4% 1% -- 3.64 3.54 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 75% 17% 4% 1% 3% -- 3.60 3.61 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% -- 3.72 3.66 being said Communications Overall Average 3.65 3.60 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 3.48 Diligence Overall Average 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.45 wasted time 3.47 3.52 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.48 3.61 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.64 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.50 for cases 3.60 3.41 Beginning court on time 3.53 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 15 Diligence Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 72 Lobato Judges Beginning court on time 67% 22% 10% -- 1% -- 3.53 3.41 Doing the necessary “homework” 76% 14% 6% 1% 3% -- 3.60 3.50 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 78% 13% 7% 1% 1% -- 3.64 3.61 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 65% 15% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3.48 3.52 cases Managing court proceedings so 71% 15% 7% 4% 3% -- 3.47 3.45 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.55 3.48 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 3.36 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.44 3.34 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.40 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.41 outside pressure 3.44 3.37 Giving reasons for rulings 3.49 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Lobato Table 16 Application of Law Judge David L. Lobato All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Lobato Number of Responses: 70 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 69% 14% 4% 1% 6% 6% 3.49 3.37 Willing to make decision without 63% 11% 6% 1% 6% 13% 3.44 3.41 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 70% 11% 1% 3% 8% 6% 3.40 3.34 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.44 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Lobato is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Lobato is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 77% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 4% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 5% 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 Lobato All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 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 Lobato are. If you feel Judge Lobato generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” 100% 83% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 6% 5% 8% 10% 8% 6% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Lobato All County Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 25
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    81%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    80%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable David L. Lobato 2018 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 . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge David L. Lobato, 98 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 73 agreed they had worked with Judge Lobato enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 73 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.96 4 3.45 3.39 3.18 2.92 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge David L. Lobato Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.39 3.18 3.45 3.96 2.92 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 87% 81% 80% 80% 60% 57% 40% 24% 19% 20% 10% 9% 11% 9% 7% 7% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge David L. Lobato Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 81% 87% 80% 100% 57% standards No, does not meet performance 10% 7% 11% 0% 24% standards No opinion 9% 7% 9% 0% 19% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge David L. Lobato Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.29 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.22 3.50 3.95 3.06 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.23 3.64 3.96 3.26 Diligence 3.04 3.55 3.96 3.19 Demeanor 3.11 3.31 3.94 2.59 Fairness N/A 3.25 3.98 2.49 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 71 0 26 37% 38% Total Non- 1236 248 72 7% 21% Attorneys Staff 38 0 10 26% 20% Jurors 124 2 29 24% 10% Other Non- 1074 246 33 4% 30% 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Lobato, 26 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 16 agreed they had worked with Judge Lobato enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 16 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 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 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 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 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 August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 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 December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 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. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney 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 Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 6 ## Page 9 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 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. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lobato 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 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.29 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 3.67 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 3.33 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.29 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 2.93 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge David L. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Lobato Promptly issuing a decision on the 9 2 1 -- -- 3 15 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 7 6 2 -- -- -- 15 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 8 3 2 1 -- 1 15 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 4 8 1 2 -- -- 15 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 8 ## Page 11 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 Lobato 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.22 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.6 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 3.27 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3 are similar 3.15 3.07 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 3.2 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 10 4 1 -- -- -- 15 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 7 6 1 1 -- -- 15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 7 2 1 -- 1 15 similar Being fair and impartial to both 6 6 2 -- 1 -- 15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 6 7 1 1 -- -- 15 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lobato 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.23 Communications Overall Average 3.38 3.33 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 3.23 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 9 2 4 -- -- -- 15 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 8 2 2 -- 1 2 15 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lobato 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.11 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 3.27 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 2.93 Treating participants with respect 3.30 3.13 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 9 3 2 -- 1 -- 15 dignity Treating participants with respect 7 3 3 1 1 -- 15 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 9 1 4 -- 1 -- 15 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Lobato 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 0 1 2 3 4 3.04 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.4 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.27 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 2.47 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 8 5 2 -- -- -- 15 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9 2 3 1 -- -- 15 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3 5 4 2 1 -- 15 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Lobato meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge David L. Lobato Yes, meets performance 87% standards No, does not meet 7% performance standards No opinion 7% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge David L. Lobato, 72 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 57 agreed they had worked with Judge Lobato enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 57 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. 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 December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th 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 September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 14 ## Page 17 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 opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a 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. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent 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 meets performance standards question. 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 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. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 16 ## Page 19 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 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.31 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.45 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.3 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.27 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.25 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 43 5 2 2 4 1 57 Treating participants with respect 42 5 2 1 7 -- 57 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 41 3 3 1 7 1 56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 40 5 2 3 6 -- 56 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 17 ## Page 20 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 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.25 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.32 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.27 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.33 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.36 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 41 3 7 2 4 -- 57 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 42 1 5 2 6 1 57 case without bias Treating fairly people who 30 3 1 2 4 17 57 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 41 2 1 6 3 4 57 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 18 ## Page 21 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 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.64 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.6 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.66 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.71 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 45 5 5 -- 2 -- 57 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 47 2 5 1 1 1 57 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 47 4 4 -- 1 1 57 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 19 ## Page 22 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 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.55 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.52 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.56 for cases 3.64 3.63 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.56 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.52 wasted time 3.55 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 42 5 6 2 1 -- 56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 44 2 4 2 2 2 56 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 47 3 5 -- 2 -- 57 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 42 6 3 -- 3 3 57 Managing court proceedings so that there is 45 2 4 3 2 1 57 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 20 ## Page 23 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 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.57 outside pressure 3.55 3.42 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Lobato All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge David L. Lobato A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 41 5 3 2 2 2 55 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 42 6 3 1 2 3 57 pressure Being able to identify and 42 3 4 3 3 1 56 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Lobato meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge David L. Lobato Yes, meets performance 80% standards No, does not meet 11% performance standards No opinion 9% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David L. Lobato 22
• 2014 cycle
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDaavviidd LL.. LLoobbaattoo 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable David L. Lobato Pueblo County Judicial Bldg. 320 West 10th St. Pueblo, CO 81003 Dear Judge Lobato: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge David L. Lobato received an overall combined average grade of 3.56 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.47, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.65, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Lobato Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.56 3.47 3.65 Sample Size - 51 61 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Lobato’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Lobato Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.56 3.47 51 3.65 61 Overall 3.56 3.47 51 3.65 61 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Lobato’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Lobato Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.88 28 46% 3.45 33 54% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDaavviidd LL.. LLoobbaattoo ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5511)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge David L. Lobato David L. Lobato All County Sample Size = 51 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 62% 20% 4% 2% 0% 12% 3.61 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 4% 2% 0% 8% 3.59 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 22% 0% 2% 0% 30% 3.60 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 32% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3.48 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.57 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 38% 48% 2% 4% 0% 8% 3.30 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 44% 40% 6% 4% 0% 6% 3.32 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 28% 22% 12% 4% 0% 34% 3.12 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 38% 29% 5% 0% 0% 29% 3.47 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.30 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 70% 14% 10% 0% 0% 6% 3.64 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 40% 22% 4% 0% 0% 34% 3.55 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.60 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 76% 12% 6% 0% 0% 6% 3.74 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 74% 12% 10% 0% 0% 4% 3.67 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 66% 16% 10% 2% 2% 4% 3.48 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 42% 34% 8% 0% 0% 16% 3.40 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.57 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 36% 46% 8% 2% 0% 8% 3.26 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 44% 26% 10% 4% 0% 16% 3.31 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 40% 30% 4% 0% 0% 26% 3.49 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.35 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.47 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge David L. Lobato David L. Lobato All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 25% Completely neutral 67% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 14% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 10% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 60% 55% Recommend retain 34% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 4% 9% Recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 94% 78% Neither 4% 9% Total Not Retain 2% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge David L. Lobato Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.47 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.57 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.61 case after trial. 3.50 3.59 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.60 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.48 3.37 3.30 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.30 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.12 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 3.47 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.60 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.64 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 David L. Lobato All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge David L. Lobato 555 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge David L. Lobato Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.57 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.74 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.67 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.48 neutral manner. 3.20 3.40 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.35 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.26 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.31 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.49 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 67% Completely Neutral 51% 14% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 10% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% David L. Lobato All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 666 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge David L. Lobato Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Lobato be retained or not retained in office? 60% Strongly recommend retain 55% 34% Recommend retain 23% 4% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Lobato Judges* Total Retain 94% 78% 2% Neither 4% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 2% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% David L. Lobato All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 777 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDaavviidd LL.. LLoobbaattoo ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6611)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge David L. Lobato David L. Lobato All County Sample Size = 61 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 18% 3% 0% 3% 2% 3.62 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 15% 3% 0% 3% 2% 3.65 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 77% 10% 7% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 62% 23% 7% 0% 3% 5% 3.48 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.58 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 65% 23% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 74% 16% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3.63 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 57% 15% 3% 2% 2% 21% 3.58 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 13% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3.66 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.60 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 18% 2% 2% 0% 2% 3.73 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 72% 23% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.67 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 66% 28% 3% 2% 0% 2% 3.60 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 75% 17% 3% 0% 2% 3% 3.69 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 79% 16% 0% 0% 2% 3% 3.76 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 15% 5% 2% 0% 11% 3.67 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 77% 10% 2% 2% 0% 10% 3.80 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 25% 2% 3% 0% 2% 3.62 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.71 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 68% 18% 2% 0% 2% 10% 3.69 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 15% 3% 0% 2% 20% 3.65 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 10% 3% 0% 2% 11% 3.74 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.69 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.65 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11911 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge David L. Lobato David L. Lobato All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 4% 11% Competely neutral 94% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 2% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.12 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 10% Competely neutral 86% 76% Lenient sentencing total 6% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.02 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 69% 68% Recommend retain 19% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 88% 86% Neither 8% 6% Total Not Retain 3% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 111220 ## Page 14 Judge David L. Lobato Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.65 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.58 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.62 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.65 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.58 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.48 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.60 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.51 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.63 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.58 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.66 or her case. 3.60 3.67 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.73 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.67 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.60 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 David L. Lobato All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge David L. Lobato 111331 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge David L. Lobato Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.71 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.69 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.76 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.67 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.80 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.62 little wasted time. 3.51 3.69 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.69 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.65 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.74 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.12 David L. Lobato 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.02 David L. Lobato -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. David L. Lobato All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111442 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge David L. Lobato Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Lobato be retained or not retained in office? 69% Strongly recommend retain 68% 19% Recommend retain 18% 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Lobato Judges* 0% Total Retain 88% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 8% 6% Total Not Retain 3% 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% David L. Lobato All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 111553 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 221115 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 221226 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 221337 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 221448 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Lobato is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 221559 ## Page 23 Judge David L. Lobato Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 18 3 8 0 7 70.0% Defense Attorneys 26 8 8 0 10 55.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 60 18 8 0 34 65.4% Total Attorneys 105 30 24 0 51 63.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 21 10 4 3 4 23.5% Law Enforcement 36 18 12 0 6 25.0% Defendant 155 80 68 1 6 6.9% Civil Litigant 155 71 69 3 12 14.0% Jurors 84 51 2 3 28 34.1% Employees, including Interpreters 9 4 0 0 5 55.6% Total Non-attorneys 460 234 155 10 61 20.0% Grand Total: 565 264 179 10 112 29.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 222660 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page

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

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026