John M. Marcucci

Evaluation history

• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 76.0% yes

  165,582 yes · 52,187 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Presiding Judge John M. Marcucci BE RETAINED. Judge Marcucci has served on the Denver County Court since 1990. Prior to his judicial appointment he was a partner in a law firm specializing in criminal, bankruptcy, and civil law.  His undergraduate degree is from Regis College, and his law degree is from the University Of Denver College Of Law. Judge Marcucci is the Presiding Judge of Denver County Court. He has previously been assigned to various divisions hearing traffic, civil, and state and municipal criminal cases and has also presided in first appearance court and handled felony preliminary hearings. Judge Marcucci championed the creation of the Denver Recovery Court Program Services, a partnership between agencies attempting to meet the needs of the most frequent users of the Denver justice system. He also has presented to the State Access to Justice Commission regarding the best way to serve repeat homeless offenders. Judge Marcucci has served as chair of the Smart PreTrial Committee under a grant from the United States Department of Justice. This team is charged with reforming a 100-year practice of simple reliance on money bonds. He led Denver to become the first front-range jurisdiction to adopt the CPAT (Colorado PreTrial Assessment Tool), an individualized risk-based assessment tool used for setting bonds for those facing criminal charges. He has served on the Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Bond Subcommittee, which led to the 2013 amendments of the statute governing pretrial bonds. During his tenure as presiding judge, “Customer” surveys and Access to Justice Surveys have been implemented in Denver County Court. The Commission interviewed Judge Marcucci, reviewed several of his written opinions, reviewed the results of surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys, and selected members of the Commission observed Judge Marcucci in court. Only two attorneys completed surveys for Judge Marcucci and seventeen non-attorneys completed the survey. Overall, 90% of respondents recommended that Judge Marcucci be retained. Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 89% recommended retention, 6% made no recommendation, and 6% recommended not to retain. (These percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.) Judge Marcucci’s retention scores were slightly above average among the non-attorneys responding to the survey. Judge Marcucci also scored above average in all categories of judicial performance criteria, with particularly high scores in demeanor, communications, diligence, and application of the law. Judge Marcucci is considered fair and respected by his colleagues in his role as Presiding Judge. On the bench, he demonstrates neutrality and ensures all parties understand his rulings. All data reviewed by the Commission supports the recommendation that Presiding Judge Marcucci be retained.
• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 76.4% yes

  144,535 yes · 44,685 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Presiding Judge John Michael Marcucci BE RETAINED. Judge Marcucci has served on the Denver County Court since 1990. Prior to his judicial appointment he was a partner in a law firm specializing in criminal, bankruptcy, and civil law. His undergraduate degree is from Regis College, and his law degree is from the University of Denver College of Law. Judge Marcucci is the Presiding Judge of Denver County Court. Members of the Commission interviewed him, reviewed surveys from attorneys, jurors, defendants, law enforcement, and probation officers who appeared before Judge Marcucci, and read transcripts of trials over which he presided. Transcripts of three trials demonstrate Judge Marcucci’s efforts to be neutral. All but a very few attorneys and non-attorneys surveyed rated Judge Marcucci well above the average of all county judges standing for retention. He received high marks in case management, knowledge and application of the law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. His oral decisions are organized and clear, and he ensures all parties involved clearly understand his rulings. On the bench, he demonstrates neutrality and ensures all parties involved clearly understand his rulings. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 89% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 3% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 92% recommended to retain and 8% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 86% recommend retain, 7% not to retain, and 8% were undecided or did not have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 93% recommended to retain and 7% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2008 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Reports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Performance Commission unanimously recommends that Judge John Michael Marcucci BE RETAINED. Background: Judge Marcucci has served on the Denver County Court since 1990. Prior to his judicial appointment he was a partner in a law firm specializing in criminal, bankruptcy and civil law. His undergraduate degree is from Regis College, and his law degree is from the University Of Denver College Of Law. Judge Marcucci is currently presiding over Traffic Court, having presided over criminal first appearances from 2003 to 2006. In Traffic Court, the majority of defendants appear pro se; transcripts of two trials demonstrate Judge Marcucci’s efforts to insure that justice is served. Members of the Commission reviewed surveys from attorneys, jurors, defendants, law enforcement, and probation officers who appeared before Judge Marcucci. Members also observed him in court, read transcripts of trials to the court, and interviewed him. Strengths: All but a very few attorneys and non-attorneys surveyed rated Judge Marcucci well above the average of all judges. He received high marks in case management, knowledge and application of the law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. His oral decisions are organized, clear, and demonstrate a dedication to helping the parties before him understand his rulings. Recommendation: 97% of attorneys and 98% of non-attorneys supported Judge Marcucci’s retention.
• 2004 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 74.0% yes

  106,150 yes · 37,353 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2004 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2004 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge John Marcucci BE RETAINED. Judge Marcucci was appointed to the Denver County Court bench in 1990. Prior to his appointment, Judge Marcucci was a partner in a law firm specializing in criminal, bankruptcy and civil cases. Judge Marcucci received his undergraduate degree from Regis College and his law degree from the University of Denver College of Law. In his 14 years on the bench, Judge Marcucci has been assigned to various divisions, hearing felony preliminary hearings, traffic, state criminal, civil and general sessions matters. Judge Marcucci currently hears felony warrants, first arraignments, and domestic violence and gun violations, and sets bonds. He reviews approximately 90 cases each day in court. Judge Marcucci is concerned that an increase in the use of drugs, particularly methamphetamine, has resulted in numerous criminal offenses. For recreation, he enjoys daily exercise, running and coaching basketball. Judge Marcucci is an assistant basketball coach at a Denver area high school. The Commission received written evaluations of Judge Marcucci from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written comments accompanying the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also received a written self evaluation completed by Judge Marcucci and conducted a personal interview with him. Judge Marcucci received high ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in maintaining appropriate control over proceedings, treating pro se parties fairly, and basing decisions on the evidence and arguments. Of the attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 95% recommended that he be retained, and 5% recommended that he not be retained. Of the non-attorneys responding, 93% recommended that he be retained, and 7% recommended that he not be retained.
• 2000 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2000 Recommendation: Retain The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge John M. Marcucci BE RETAINED. Judge Marcucci was appointed to the Denver County Court bench in February 1990. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Marcucci was in private practice in Denver, specializing in criminal, bankruptcy and personal injury law. Judge Marcucci received his undergraduate degree from Regis College in Denver and was graduated from the University of Denver College of Law in 1978. Judge Marcucci presently hears civil cases. He has also served in traffic court; General Sessions trials for municipal ordinance violations; and criminal court. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Marcucci from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Marcucci and conducted a personal interview with Judge Marcucci. Judge Marcucci believes that it is important for judges to participate in community service to show that judges care about people and are not "programmed" in the law. He believes that community activities give judges life experiences which may assist them in making judgements. However, he also believes that judges should avoid activities in areas which might come before them in court. Judge Marcucci tries to take each case one at a time in his courtroom and ensure that each party feels that he or she has had their day in court. He works to keep the stresses and problems of each case with that case and not let them affect the way he views the other matters before the court. Judge Marcucci enjoys daily exercise, running, biking, ice skating and coaching girls' basketball. He has also coached soccer and is assisting the oldest of his three daughters in her head coaching debut. He enjoys instruction at the youth level. Judge Marcucci received high ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in virtually every category, particularly in the areas of being courteous; treating all parties equally; communicating clearly, thoroughly and in a well-reasoned manner; maintaining proper judicial temperament; correctly applying the law; and performing with diligence, efficiency and minimal delay. Of the attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 100% recommended that Judge Marcucci be retained in office, 0% recommended that he not be retained, and 0% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 93% recommended retention, 3% recommended non-retention, and 4% had no opinion.
• 1996 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Judicial Performance Commission of the Second Judicial District recommends that Judge Marcucci BE RETAINED. Judge John M. Marcucci graduated from Regis College in 1975 with a degree in Economics and Accounting. He attended the University of Denver College of Law and was admitted to the bar in 1978. He was an associate with Leland Huttner, P.C., and Kidneigh & Hughes, and later a partner with Hughes, Clikeman & Marcucci, P.C. until 1990. He was appointed to the bench in February 1990. Judge Marcucci is currently hearing cases in the criminal division. Previously he worked in traffic and general sessions (city ordinance violations) divisions. Judge Marcucci advised the Commission on Judicial Performance that he has heard 150 jury trials in the last five and one-half years. Judge Marcucci generally received high rating in most areas from attorneys and law enforcement officials responding to the surveys. However, the judge is aware of some concerns regarding his level of communication in the courtroom and agrees to work on improvement in that area. Judge Marcucci otherwise received high marks from jurors, law enforcement officials and attorney evaluations. Written survey results showed that 79.6% of attorneys and 100% of jurors favored retention; 16.7% of attorneys favored non-retention; and 3.7% of attorneys had no opinion.

Surveys & reports

• 2016 cycle
  • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable John M. Marcucci 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology . 5 Survey of Non Attorneys . 8 Methodology and How to Read Results . 8 Retention .11 Demeanor .12 Fairness .13 Communications .14 Diligence .15 Application of Law .16 Bias .17 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge John M. Marcucci, 33 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 19 agreed they had worked with Judge Marcucci enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 19 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.75 Total Non-Attorneys 3.80 Non-Attorney Other* 3.80 Table 1 Judge John M. Marcucci Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.75 N/A 3.80 N/A 3.80 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 90% Total Non-Attorneys 89% Non-Attorney Other 89% Table 2 Judge John M. Marcucci Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 90% N/A 89% N/A 89% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge John M. Marcucci Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management N/A N/A N/A N/A Application and N/A 3.78 N/A 3.78 Knowledge of Law Communications N/A 3.86 N/A 3.86 Diligence N/A 3.77 N/A 3.77 Demeanor N/A 3.84 N/A 3.84 Fairness N/A 3.73 N/A 3.73 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 8 0 2 38% 33% Total Non- 166 22 17 21% 43% Attorneys Staff 44 0 15 59% 42% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 122 22 2 4% 50% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys For Judge Marcucci, 3 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 2 agreed they had worked with Judge Marcucci enough to evaluate his performance. With only two completed surveys received from attorneys, there is significant risk that reporting these results could jeopardize the anonymity of the respondents. Therefore the attorney results for Judge Marcucci are not reported individually. The results from the two completed surveys received are included in the overall combined and retention scores reported in the previous section. Methodology a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 5 ## Page 8 standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 7 ## Page 10 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge John M. Marcucci, 30 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 17 agreed they had worked with Judge Marcucci enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 17 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 8 ## Page 11 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 9 ## Page 12 the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 10 ## Page 13 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 5 Judge John M. Marcucci Total Retain 89% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% Figure 3 100% 80% 71% 71% 60% 40% 18% 16% 20% 6% 5% 6% 3% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Marcucci All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 11 ## Page 14 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 4 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.84 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.86 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.73 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.83 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Marcucci Table 6 Demeanor Judge John M. Marcucci All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 14 Marcucci Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 65% -- 6% -- -- 29% 3.83 3.61 Treating participants with respect 65% -- 6% -- -- 29% 3.83 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 53% 6% 6% -- -- 35% 3.73 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 76% -- 6% -- -- 18% 3.86 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.84 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 12 ## Page 15 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 5 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.73 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.67 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.69 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.79 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.69 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Marcucci Table 7 Fairness Judge John M. Marcucci All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 14 Marcucci Judges Giving participants an opportunity 59% 12% 6% -- -- 24% 3.69 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the 71% 6% 6% -- -- 18% 3.79 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 59% 12% 6% -- -- 24% 3.69 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 53% 12% 6% -- -- 29% 3.67 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.73 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 13 ## Page 16 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 6 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.86 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.85 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.86 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Marcucci Table 8 Communications Judge John M. Marcucci All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 14 Marcucci Judges Making sure all participants 71% -- 6% -- -- 24% 3.85 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 76% -- 6% -- -- 18% 3.86 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 71% -- 6% -- -- 24% 3.85 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.86 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 14 ## Page 17 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 7 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.77 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.64 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.70 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.83 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.80 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Marcucci Table 9 Diligence Judge John M. Marcucci All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 12 Marcucci Judges Beginning court on time 41% 6% 6% -- -- 47% 3.67 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 53% -- 6% -- -- 41% 3.80 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 65% -- 6% -- -- 29% 3.83 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 47% 6% 6% -- -- 41% 3.70 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 47% 12% 6% -- -- 35% 3.64 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.77 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 15 ## Page 18 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 8 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.78 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.83 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.67 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Marcucci Table 10 Application of Law Judge John M. Marcucci All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 12 Marcucci Judges Giving reasons for rulings 59% -- 6% -- -- 35% 3.82 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 53% 12% 6% -- -- 29% 3.67 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 65% -- 6% -- -- 29% 3.83 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.78 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 16 ## Page 19 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Marcucci is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Marcucci is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 9 100% 94% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 6% 7% 5% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Marcucci All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 17 ## Page 20 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 Marcucci are. If you feel Judge Marcucci generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 11 100% 94% 80% 63% 60% 40% 20% 6% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Marcucci All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge John M. Marcucci 18
• 2012 cycle
  • 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuuccccii 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2nd Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable John M. Marcucci City & County Bldg. 1437 Bannock St., Room 108 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Marcucci: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by 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 two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. John M. Marcucci May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.51, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.68, Judge John M. Marcucci’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.60. Judge Marcucci Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.60 3.51 3.68 Sample Size - 261 134 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Marcucci from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Marcucci’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Marcucci Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.75 3.71 74 3.78 69 2008 3.56 3.39 41 3.73 19 2009 3.53 3.57 53 3.49 39 2010 3.57 3.38 93 3.75 7 Overall 3.60 3.51 261 3.68 134 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of 1 ## Page 5 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 Marcucci’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges. Judge Marcucci Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 100 2007 % 3.78 69 % 3.82 3.30 100 2008 % 3.73 19 % 3.82 3.26 100 2009 % 3.49 39 % 3.83 3.22 100 2010 % 3.75 7 % 3.85 3.25 100 All Yrs. % 3.68 134 % 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Marcucci’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 3 ## Page 7 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuucii ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 226611)) ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Sample Size = 261 A B C D Fail DK/NA Marcucci Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 56% 10% 3% 0% 0% 30% 3.75 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 17% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.66 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 40% 13% 4% 2% 0% 41% 3.55 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 20% 7% 2% 0% 13% 3.55 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.63 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 21% 5% 2% 1% 8% 3.54 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 19% 6% 3% 3% 21% 3.35 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 46% 14% 9% 2% 3% 25% 3.32 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 54% 19% 6% 1% 1% 19% 3.53 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.44 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 70% 21% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.58 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 34% 11% 5% 2% 1% 48% 3.41 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.50 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 16% 7% 2% 2% 0% 3.57 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 68% 15% 9% 2% 5% 0% 3.40 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 64% 22% 5% 2% 5% 2% 3.40 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 64% 18% 5% 2% 2% 9% 3.56 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 62% 19% 7% 2% 2% 7% 3.49 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 52% 18% 5% 1% 2% 22% 3.50 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 13% 4% 1% 2% 29% 3.53 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.51 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.51 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Marcucci Judges Sample Size = 261 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 34% 28% Completely neutral 53% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 1% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 11% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 7% Total Retain 93% 88% Total Not Retain 8% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 89% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 5% Total Not Retain 7% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.51 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.63 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.75 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.66 proceedings. 3.44 3.55 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.55 3.39 3.44 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.54 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.35 3.16 3.32 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.53 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.50 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.58 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.41 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci All County Judges Judge John M. Marcucci 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.48 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.57 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.40 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.40 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.56 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.51 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.49 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.50 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.53 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 6% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 34% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 53% Completely Neutral 50% 1% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 5% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% John M. Marcucci All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain 71% 11% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Marcucci Judges 3% Total Retain 93% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 13% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain 68% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 3% Judge Marcucci Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 89% 84% Undecided or DK 3% 5% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 7% 12% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John M. Marcucci All County Judges 9 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuucii ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113344)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Sample Size = 134 A B C D Fail DK/NA Marcucci Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 76% 16% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3.69 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 13% 4% 2% 1% 3% 3.69 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 13% 7% 2% 2% 3% 3.59 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 72% 17% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3.59 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 12% 4% 1% 2% 3% 3.67 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 78% 11% 5% 0% 4% 3% 3.64 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 75% 9% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.65 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 80% 11% 3% 0% 2% 5% 3.76 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.68 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 10% 2% 0% 2% 4% 3.76 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 13% 2% 1% 0% 3% 3.80 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 15% 1% 1% 0% 3% 3.81 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.79 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 56% 31% 4% 1% 1% 5% 3.46 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 8% 4% 1% 0% 4% 3.79 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 73% 11% 5% 1% 0% 11% 3.75 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 76% 14% 3% 1% 1% 6% 3.73 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 74% 18% 3% 1% 0% 4% 3.73 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.69 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 75% 13% 4% 0% 3% 5% 3.65 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 71% 12% 4% 1% 4% 8% 3.60 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 15% 5% 0% 3% 4% 3.63 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.63 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.68 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Marcucci Judges Sample Size = 134 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% 12% Competely neutral 79% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 11% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.07 0.12 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 7% 12% Competely neutral 78% 77% Lenient sentencing total 16% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.02 0.06 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 85% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 95% 92% Total Not Retain 5% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 80% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 89% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 8% Total Not Retain 5% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.68 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.64 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.69 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.69 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.59 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.59 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.68 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.67 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.64 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.65 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.76 or her case. 3.59 3.79 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.76 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci All County Judges Judge John M. Marcucci 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.69 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.46 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.79 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.75 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.73 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.73 little wasted time. 3.50 3.63 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.65 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.60 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.63 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.07 John M. Marcucci 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.02 John M. Marcucci 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh John M. Marcucci All County Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 John M. Marcucci All County Judges Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 85% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Marcucci Judges Total Retain 95% 92% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 5% 8% 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 5% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Marcucci Judges Total Retain 89% 85% 2% Undecided 5% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 5% 7% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John M. Marcucci All County Judges 15 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim 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 Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 17 ## Page 21 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, 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 justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 18 ## Page 22 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 19 ## Page 23 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 20 ## Page 24 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 21 ## Page 25 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 22 ## Page 26 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Marcucci is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 23 ## Page 27 Judge John M. Marcucci 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 48 42 0 0 6 12.5% Defense Attorneys 588 434 7 0 147 25.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 14 7 6 0 1 12.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 92 63 0 0 29 31.5% Other Attorneys Civil 142 49 23 0 70 58.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 908 603 43 1 261 30.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 6 4 2 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 404 297 11 4 92 23.4% Defendant 589 353 187 14 35 8.7% Civil Litigant 100 55 36 2 7 10.9% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 1100 710 236 20 134 15.5% Grand Total: 2008 1313 279 21 395 22.8% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 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 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 25 ## Page 29 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 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. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 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 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 34 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 35 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 36 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 37 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 38 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuuccccii 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2nd Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable John M. Marcucci City & County Bldg. 1437 Bannock St., Room 108 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Marcucci: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 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. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. John M. Marcucci March 26, 2012 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge John M. Marcucci received an overall combined average grade of 3.50 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.44, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.55, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.45 [not shown below]. Judge Marcucci Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.50 3.44 3.55 Sample Size - 197 76 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Marcucci’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Marcucci Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 3.56 3.39 41 3.73 19 2009 3.53 3.57 53 3.49 39 2010 3.57 3.38 93 3.75 7 2011 3.45 3.55 10 3.35 11 Overall 3.50 3.44 197 3.55 76 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.85, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.29. 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 Marcucci’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 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Marcucci Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Marcucci Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.55 76 100% 3.85 3.29 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuucii ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 119977)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Sample Size = 197 A B C D Fail DK/NA Marcucci Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 56% 11% 4% 1% 0% 29% 3.71 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 73% 17% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3.63 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 39% 13% 4% 3% 1% 40% 3.48 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 20% 8% 3% 0% 11% 3.51 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.58 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 22% 7% 3% 2% 5% 3.49 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 57% 20% 7% 4% 4% 8% 3.34 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 13% 11% 3% 4% 32% 3.11 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 18% 11% 2% 1% 17% 3.39 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.33 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 22% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.53 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 34% 11% 5% 2% 1% 47% 3.42 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.48 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 17% 7% 2% 3% 1% 3.50 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 14% 12% 3% 6% 1% 3.29 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 24% 6% 3% 6% 2% 3.29 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 61% 19% 7% 2% 2% 9% 3.49 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.39 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 62% 18% 10% 3% 3% 5% 3.42 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 52% 18% 7% 2% 2% 20% 3.45 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 12% 5% 1% 3% 29% 3.49 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.45 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.44 3.31 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Marcucci Retention Sample Size = 197 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 34% 30% Completely neutral 53% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 2% 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 5% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 80% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 7% Total Retain 92% 86% Total Not Retain 8% 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 7% Total Retain 89% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.44 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.58 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.71 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.63 proceedings. 3.44 3.48 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.51 3.40 3.33 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.49 relevant facts. 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.34 3.15 3.11 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.39 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 3.48 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.53 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.42 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.31 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci All County Retention Judges Judge John M. Marcucci 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.39 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.29 3.50 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.29 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.36 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.29 in a neutral manner. 3.19 3.49 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.45 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.28 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.42 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.45 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.49 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 6% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 34% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 53% Completely Neutral 49% 2% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 5% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% John M. Marcucci All County Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain 70% 12% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Retention Judge Marcucci Judges 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 92% 86% 7% Total Not Retain 8% 14% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain 66% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Including Und/DK Respondents 3% Undecided or DK All Cnty 5% Retention Judge Marcucci Judges 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 89% 81% 6% Undecided or DK 3% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 13% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John M. Marcucci All County Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuucii ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7766)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Sample Size = 76 A B C D Fail DK/NA Marcucci Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 18% 3% 4% 1% 3% 3.58 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 13% 5% 5% 0% 3% 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 62% 18% 11% 3% 3% 4% 3.40 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 20% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3.43 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 67% 18% 7% 1% 3% 4% 3.52 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 68% 15% 8% 0% 5% 4% 3.46 3.53 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 66% 12% 8% 0% 5% 9% 3.46 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 66% 16% 7% 0% 1% 9% 3.61 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.51 3.57 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 72% 17% 4% 0% 3% 4% 3.63 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 18% 4% 1% 0% 3% 3.69 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 71% 22% 3% 1% 0% 3% 3.68 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 59% 26% 8% 1% 1% 4% 3.47 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 11% 8% 1% 0% 4% 3.68 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 12% 7% 1% 0% 11% 3.67 3.59 4d. Being prepared for cases. 67% 17% 5% 3% 0% 8% 3.61 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 22% 4% 1% 0% 5% 3.64 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 13% 9% 0% 4% 7% 3.49 3.51 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 15% 5% 1% 5% 13% 3.42 3.53 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 18% 8% 0% 4% 7% 3.46 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.46 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge John M. Marcucci John M. All County Marcucci Retention Sample Size = 76 Judges 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 16% 12% Competely neutral 76% 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.24 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% 12% Competely neutral 78% 78% Lenient sentencing total 13% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.09 0.14 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 78% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 15% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 5% Total Retain 93% 92% Total Not Retain 7% 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 72% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 7% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 5% Total Retain 86% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 8% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Overall Average Grade 3.58 3.50 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.58 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.40 manner. 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.43 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.48 3.51 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.57 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.52 heard. 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.46 case without bias. 3.53 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.46 themselves. 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.61 or her case. 3.60 3.67 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.63 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.69 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.68 can hear what's being said. 3.71 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci All County Retention Judges Judge John M. Marcucci 12 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.61 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.47 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.68 proceedings. 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.67 3.59 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.61 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.64 little wasted time. 3.52 3.46 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.52 3.49 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.51 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.42 possible outside pressure. 3.53 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.46 relevant facts. 3.52 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.24 John M. Marcucci 0.15 All County Retention 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 0.09 John M. Marcucci 0.14 All County Retention 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. John M. Marcucci All County Retention Judges 13 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge John M. Marcucci Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 78% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 15% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 8% All Cnty Retention 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Marcucci Judges 3% Total Retain 93% 92% Total Not Retain 7% 8% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 72% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 14% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 8% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 8% All Cnty Retention 3% Judge Marcucci Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 86% 84% 2% Undecided 8% 8% 4% Total Not Retain 7% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% John M. Marcucci All County Retention Judges 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 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 Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention).  The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 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 16 ## Page 20 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. 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 justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. 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. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/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 2012 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 17 ## Page 21 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 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 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges  RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. 18 ## Page 22 As stated above, 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 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 justice or 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 Trial 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 2012 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. 19 ## Page 23 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 percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. 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 Marcucci is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge John M. Marcucci 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 57 43 10 0 4 8.5% Defense Attorneys 601 438 14 0 149 25.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 129 75 18 0 36 32.4% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 811 564 49 1 197 25.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Other 2 1 1 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 313 277 3 2 31 10.0% Defendant 418 220 158 14 26 10.0% Civil Litigant 188 92 82 3 11 10.4% Employees, including Interpreters 19 9 3 0 7 43.8% Probation Officers 4 1 1 1 1 33.3% Total Non-attorneys 944 600 248 20 76 10.9% Grand Total: 1755 1164 297 21 273 18.7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2049 1103 289 0 657 37.3% Defense Attorneys 8880 5065 774 0 3041 37.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 12 7 1 0 4 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 441 266 30 0 145 35.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1346 701 191 0 454 39.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 12752 7150 1292 1 4309 37.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 277 159 90 15 13 7.0% Witness 4435 2510 1368 182 375 12.2% Other 549 334 156 20 39 9.9% Law Enforcement 3638 2574 457 92 515 16.2% Defendant 24165 11842 9981 329 2013 14.2% Civil Litigant 4982 2497 1744 118 623 19.2% Witness 1544 856 331 44 313 25.8% Other 78 50 20 2 6 10.3% Jurors 11310 5027 1133 268 4882 48.0% Employees, including Interpreters 666 182 95 12 377 66.0% Probation Officers 415 109 97 5 204 64.2% Total Non-attorneys 52059 26140 15472 1087 9360 25.6% Grand Total: 64811 33290 16764 1088 13669 28.4% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4309 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 17% 5% 1% 1% 25% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.41 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 5% 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 24% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 12% 6% 4% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 18% 10% 6% 5% 23% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 17% 7% 3% 2% 30% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 17% 9% 4% 4% 1% 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 20% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 22% 9% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 16% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4309 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 81% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 9360 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.56 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.60 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.53 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.53 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.57 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is 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% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 66% 20% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.49 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 4% 2% 2% 13% 3.59 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 17% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.51 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 12% 4% 2% 3% 18% 3.53 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 9360 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 12% Competely neutral 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.14 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 92% Total Not Retain 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% Undecided or Don't Know 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% Total Not Retain 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 31 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 32 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. Makings 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 33 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 he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 34 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom 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 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 35 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
• 2008 cycle
  • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE JJoooohhnn MMMM.. MMaarrrrccuucccciiii 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable John M. Marcucci City & County Bldg. 1437 Bannock St., Room 108 Denver, CO. 80202 Dear Judge Marcucci: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2008 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 57,000 people statewide who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 12,400 people responded—3,084 to the attorney survey and 9,317 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. • Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable John M. Marcucci April, 30 2008 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 8866)) ## Page 5 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..66 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.6 Q1. Overall Case 33.55 Management 3.4 3.6 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.6 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.5 3.4 3.9 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.33 1b. Beginning court on time 3.4 3.5 3.6 1c. Allotting appropriate amount 3.4 of time for cases 3.4 3.6 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.5 according to schedule 3.5 3.3 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.1 reach agreement 3.0 3.7 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.5 3.7 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.9 1h. Promptly issuing a decision 3.6 on the case after trial 3.5 3.7 1i. Setting reasonable schedules 3.5 for cases 33.44 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 LLaaww 3.3 3.6 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.6 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.3 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.3 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 2.9 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.6 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.3 substantive law 3.3 3.7 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.4 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.7 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 3.7 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.4 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.6 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.7 2j. Making decisions without fear 3.5 ooff bbeeiinngg aappppeeaalleedd 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.8 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.7 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.7 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 3.6 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.5 politely 33.44 3.3 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.6 4d. Treating participants with 3.5 respect 3.5 3.6 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.8 4f. Being consistent in [his/her] 3.5 behavior 3.5 33.66 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.7 4h. Giving all participants an 3.6 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.7 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.8 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.7 3.7 44kk. TTrreeaattiinngg pprroo ssee ppaarrttiieess ffaaiirrllyy 33.66 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.6 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.6 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.6 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 3.7 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.6 5e. Providing prompt access to 3.4 the court in emergency matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is toward the defense or prosecution? John M. Marcucci 0.6 All County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 12 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Marcucci's sentences? John M. Marcucci 0.3 All County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.3 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 13 John M. Marcucci AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 90% 88% 81% 80% 77%77% 7744%% 7733%% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 13%13% 12%12% 10% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6%6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 59% 54% 57% B 10% 18% 18% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 1% No Grade 31% 23% 21% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 58% 62% B 28% 28% 25% C 12% 9% 7% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 2% Average 3.3 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 58% 56% B 27% 29% 28% C 7% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 63% 58% 58% B 27% 30% 28% C 4% 6% 7% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 18 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 21% 22% 23% B 11% 18% 17% C 4% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 63% 51% 47% Average 3.3 3.1 3.0 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 67% 66% B 18% 22% 22% C 4% 6% 7% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 41% 42% 44% B 11% 19% 21% C 2% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 46% 30% 24% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 47% 48% B 6% 15% 16% C 1% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 35% 32% 29% Average 3.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 55% 54% B 19% 26% 26% C 1% 6% 8% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 21% 9% 8% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 53% 54% B 19% 25% 25% C 2% 9% 9% D 1% 4% 4% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 15% 5% 5% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 59% 55% 56% B 21% 25% 25% C 4% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 15% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 22% 20% 27% B 5% 12% 16% C 5% 4% 6% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 66% 60% 47% Average 3.3 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 27% 26% 27% B 12% 17% 18% C 6% 9% 9% D 1% 5% 5% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 52% 40% 38% Average 3.3 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade B B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 51% 54% B 25% 29% 28% C 4% 8% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 57% 60% B 17% 25% 24% C 4% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 4% 4% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 58% 58% B 19% 25% 24% C 2% 8% 8% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 44% 36% B 20% 20% 18% C 1% 6% 5% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 22% 26% 37% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 55% 54% B 11% 20% 20% C 6% 7% 7% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 11% 12% 14% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 66% 54% 55% B 11% 21% 20% C 4% 5% 6% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 18% 16% 16% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 87% 78% 76% B 12% 18% 18% C 0% 3% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 34 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 71% 71% B 18% 22% 21% C 4% 4% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 85% 77% 76% B 14% 19% 19% C 1% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 36 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 69% 69% B 14% 20% 20% C 6% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 69% 69% B 14% 17% 17% C 7% 6% 7% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24 ## Page 38 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 55% 56% 55% B 22% 22% 22% C 13% 10% 10% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 68% 68% B 18% 19% 18% C 4% 6% 7% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 62% 64% B 19% 21% 20% C 5% 8% 8% D 4% 5% 4% Fail 1% 3% 4% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 64% 64% B 19% 22% 21% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 3% 4% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28 ## Page 42 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 63% 64% B 17% 21% 20% C 5% 7% 7% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% 2% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29 ## Page 43 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 77% 70% 70% B 17% 20% 19% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 60% 59% B 15% 20% 21% C 5% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 6% 6% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 60% 60% 64% B 10% 14% 12% C 4% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 27% 20% 19% Average 3.8 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 60% 55% 51% B 10% 14% 11% C 4% 4% 3% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 26% 24% 33% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 51% 51% 53% B 19% 23% 22% C 2% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 27% 15% 13% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 60% 54% 54% B 20% 25% 26% C 2% 9% 9% D 1% 4% 4% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 14% 5% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 53% 52% 56% B 17% 23% 24% C 2% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 27% 12% 9% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 51% 54% B 13% 17% 18% C 2% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 31% 21% 19% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 29% 38% 39% B 7% 14% 14% C 1% 4% 4% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 60% 41% 40% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 2% 4% 3% ⇑ 4 3% 5% 4% 3 3% 7% 7% 2 9% 11% 10% 1 18% 15% 14% 0 Neutral 64% 53% 53% -1 0% 3% 4% -2 2% 1% 2% -3 0% 1% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 0% Average 0.6 0.9 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Marcucci are? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 3% 3% 3 5% 5% 4% 2 3% 8% 8% 1 11% 11% 10% 0 Appropriate 78% 63% 60% -1 2% 4% 4% -2 2% 2% 3% -3 0% 2% 3% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 1% Average 0.3 0.5 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 88% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 7% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 3% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 3% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn--AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6666)) ## Page 56 John M. Marcucci NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.8 Overall Average 3.5 3.6 3.8 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.55 3.6 3.8 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.9 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.7 3.7 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.7 Q5. Overall Application of 3.4 Law 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAverage GGradde John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 57 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.8 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.6 33.88 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.8 1b. Treating participants politely 3.5 and with respect 3.6 3.7 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.5 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.7 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.4 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 58 John M. Marcucci NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.8 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.8 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.8 2b. Treating those involved with 3.5 the case without bias 3.5 3.8 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.5 3.9 2d. Giving each side enough 3.5 time to present his or her case 33.66 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 59 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.9 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 3.8 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.9 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.7 3.9 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.7 hear what's being said 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 60 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.7 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.4 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.44 3.4 3.8 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..66 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 3.8 4c. Setting reasonable 3.5 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 3.8 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.6 cases 3.6 3.8 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.5 little wasted time 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 61 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.5 3.7 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.5 3.7 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.5 outside pressure 3.5 3.8 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 33.55 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 62 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is toward the defense or prosecution? John M. Marcucci -0.1 All County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 63 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Marcucci's sentences? John M. Marcucci -0.1 All County Judges 0.0 All Trial Judges 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 64 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 92% 90% 90% 85% 81% 80% 78% 74% 70% 60% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 65 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 69% 73% B 14% 19% 18% C 2% 6% 4% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 66 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 72% 76% B 14% 16% 14% C 2% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 67 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 83% 70% 74% B 11% 16% 14% C 2% 5% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 68 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 78% 65% 69% B 17% 18% 17% C 2% 6% 5% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 2% 5% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 69 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 83% 72% 75% B 11% 15% 14% C 3% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 70 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 85% 70% 73% B 11% 15% 14% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 3% 5% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 71 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 80% 52% 49% B 9% 11% 9% C 2% 4% 3% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 27% 35% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 72 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 69% 72% B 8% 15% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 6% 5% Average 3.9 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 73 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 86% 74% 76% B 8% 14% 14% C 2% 6% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 74 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 88% 74% 76% B 9% 17% 16% C 2% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 75 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 76% 78% B 9% 15% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 76 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 50% 59% 61% B 39% 23% 24% C 2% 9% 8% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 77 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 85% 75% 77% B 11% 16% 15% C 0% 5% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 78 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 59% 62% B 12% 17% 17% C 3% 6% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 15% 13% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 79 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 67% 71% B 12% 15% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 9% 8% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 80 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 76% 64% 66% B 18% 20% 20% C 3% 7% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 81 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 80% 62% 65% B 14% 16% 16% C 0% 7% 5% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 82 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 57% 59% B 11% 12% 12% C 2% 4% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 21% 20% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 83 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 83% 64% 66% B 12% 14% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 10% 10% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 84 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 2% 2% 1% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 2% 1 4% 5% 5% 0 Neutral 84% 78% 82% -1 7% 3% 3% -2 0% 1% 1% -3 2% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 2% 1% 1% Average -0.1 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 85 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Marcucci are? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 2% 3% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 2% 2% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 2% 3% 2% 1 0% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 79% 73% 76% -1 11% 5% 5% -2 7% 3% 4% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 2% 1% Average -0.1 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 86 John M. Marcucci Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 92% 81% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 5% 9% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 0% 3% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 3% 7% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The databases of names and addresses of the people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom were primarily provided by the Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council and the Denver County Courts. These three sources provided name and address data in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Starting in the second quarter of 2007, the data was provided quarterly. Where there were low sample counts, this data was supplemented by contacting district court administrators for additional sample of particular types of potential respondents. The data was then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected— quarterly starting in 2007. Depending on the available number of names and the count of already received surveys for a particular judge, either all or a random sample of names were drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had appeared. Survey: Each person whose name was drawn was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent would be sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent follow-up postcard. If the person did not respond after the follow-up postcard, a second questionnaire and letter were sent and in some instances a second follow-up postcard was sent after the second letter and questionnaire. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney responses, telephone interviews were conducted with attorneys who had not responded to the mailed questionnaires. Over 900 interviews were completed by telephone. 1 ## Page 89 Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney respondents these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The estimated response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. The true response rates are likely considerably higher than shown because of the relatively high percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed in court. 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 similar table showing the response counts and estimated cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 90 Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 841 306 93 2 440 58.8% Defense Attorneys 1,082 341 102 2 637 65.0% Other Attorneys Crmnl 809 418 27 3 361 46.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1,395 312 171 13 899 73.4% Other Attorneys Civil 598 280 53 2 263 48.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role 852 289 77 2 484 62.5% Total Attorneys 5,577 1,946 523 24 3,084 61.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 8,170 5,431 1,417 34 1,288 19.1% Defendant 13,787 9,091 3,737 25 934 9.3% Victim 295 222 63 2 8 3.4% Witness 1,886 1,342 453 5 86 6.0% Other 5,396 3,532 1,301 43 520 12.7% Civil Litigant 6,552 4,390 1,109 21 1,032 19.0% Witness 46 31 5 0 10 24.4% Other 59 29 15 0 15 34.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 5,065 2,598 1,843 12 612 19.0% Total Non-attorneys 41,256 26,666 9,943 142 4,505 14.4% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 10,214 4,940 460 22 4,792 49.1% Total Other 10,240 4,946 460 22 4,812 49.2% Total 57,073 33,558 10,926 188 12,401 26.9% 3 ## Page 91 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney respondents and Non-attorney respondents. Within the Attorney and Non-attorney section are subsections of graphs displaying average grades for each section of the questionnaire and each question and tables showing the percentage distribution of grades. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all county judges, and all trial judges for which 2008 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.67 to 3.99 B—= 2.67 to 2.99 C—= 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.66 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for county judges surveyed in 2008, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2008 survey. Projectability: Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%- confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self- selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. 4 ## Page 92 While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often— albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 5 ## Page 93 John M. Marcucci Responses by Type Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 14 7 6 0 1 12.5% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 142 38 23 0 81 68.1% Total Attorneys 160 46 29 0 85 35.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 239 174 6 1 58 24.9% Defendant 175 136 31 0 8 5.6% Victim 6 4 2 0 0 0.0% Civil Litigant 10 6 4 0 0 0.0% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 431 321 43 1 66 82.7% Grand Total: 591 367 72 1 151 29.1% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 94 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 95 Commission on Judicial Performance 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ _ JUDGE [NAME] 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Last Name]? _ 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 not 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/NS). _ DK 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge [Last h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name]? i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ DK _ 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 96 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward b. Makings sure all participants understand the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 completely unbiased, circle “0.” c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Last Name] in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? DK ________________________________________________________ 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even ___________________________________________________________ when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] {Question 3d is asked only regarding district judges.} 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 97 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance 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 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 JUDGE[NAME] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Last Name]? _____________________________________________________________ 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 Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please understanding for those who appear place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 98 DK Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Last Name] c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Last Name] ? e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ 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 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or _ cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, _ circle “0.” _ _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward _ Defense Neutral Prosecution _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next [Last Name] ? question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands _ down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” _ Sentences Appropriate Sentences _ Too Light Sentences Too Harsh _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Back Page
• 2004 cycle
  • 2004 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2004 Judicial Performance Survey TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoohhnn MM.. MMaarrccuuccccii ## Page 2 March 22, 2004 The Honorable John M. Marcucci County Judge, 2nd Judicial District City & County Bldg. 1437 Bannock St., Room 108 Denver, Co. 80202 Dear Judge Marcucci: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2004 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 35,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 10,000 people responded—3,683 to the attorney survey and 6,330 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e as required by the recent rule changes) , each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable John M. Marcucci March 22, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.3 Overall Average 3.4 3.3 3.6 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.3 3.4 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.2 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.0 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 5 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.3 3.7 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.5 during trial 3.5 3.3 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.4 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.7 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 4 1e. Assisting parties to reach 3.1 agreement 3 3.6 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.4 3.8 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.2 3.7 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.4 3.5 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 6 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.2 3.5 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.2 3.5 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 2.4 2c. Issuing written findings of 3 fact and law 3.1 3.2 2d. Willing to reconsider error 2.9 in fact or law 2.9 3.4 2e. Having knowledge of 3.2 relevant substantive law 3.2 3.3 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.3 of procedure and evidence 3.3 3.3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.3 analyze relevant facts 3.3 2h. Issuing consistent 3.5 sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.2 2i. Willing to make decision 3.3 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.3 3.4 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 7 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.6 3a. Speaking clearly 3.5 3.5 3.6 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.7 3c. Using understandable 3.6 language 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 8 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.2 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 2.3 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.4 2.6 4c. Having empathy with the 3.2 parties involved 3.2 2.5 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.4 3.3 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.3 2.7 4f. Being consistent in his/her 3.4 behavior 3.3 4g. Conducting his/her 3.1 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.3 3.2 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.4 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.3 and rules 3.3 3.3 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.5 communications 3.6 3.4 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.4 fairly 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 9 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.2 3.4 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.3 3.4 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.2 3.4 5c. Doing the necessary "homework" and being 3.3 prepared for his/her cases 3.2 5d. Being willing to handle 3.4 cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicatedand time consuming 3.3 3.4 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.4 matters 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 10 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is toward the defense or prosecution? John M. -0.1 Marcucci All County 0.8 Judges All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 11 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Marcucci's sentences? John M. -0.4 Marcucci All County 0.5 Judges All Trial Judges 0.4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 12 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 81% 80% 77% 74% 73% 70% 69% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 16% 16% 15% 14% 14% 10% 6%6% 6%6% 5% 5%5%5% 5% 4%4% 4%4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Marcucci Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 13 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 51% 51% B 17% 22% 24% C 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 39% 19% 17% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 14 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 53% 54% B 35% 30% 29% C 13% 10% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 15 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 50% 49% B 35% 31% 30% C 13% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 16 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 74% 52% 50% B 26% 31% 30% C 9% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 17 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 8% 21% 25% B 16% 18% C 8% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 92% 51% 41% Average 4 3.1 3 Letter Grade A B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 18 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 70% 59% 58% B 22% 27% 27% C 9% 8% 8% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 19 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 41% 39% B 13% 21% 24% C 8% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 43% 27% 21% Average 3.8 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 20 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 39% 47% 44% B 17% 20% 21% C 6% 7% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 43% 25% 24% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 21 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 57% 50% 47% B 26% 29% 30% C 9% 9% 10% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 9% 9% 8% Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 22 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 57% 49% 49% B 35% 27% 27% C 9% 11% 10% D 5% 5% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 23 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 64% 51% 51% B 27% 27% 27% C 9% 10% 10% D 4% 5% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 6% 5% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 24 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 19% 27% B 19% 11% 17% C 6% 8% 9% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 69% 57% 42% Average 2.4 3 3.1 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 25 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 27% 26% B 29% 19% 20% C 19% 11% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 19% 35% 34% Average 3.2 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade B B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 26 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 47% 46% B 52% 30% 31% C 4% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 5% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 27 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 52% 52% B 35% 28% 29% C 17% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 28 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 51% 51% B 39% 28% 28% C 13% 9% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 29 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 38% 27% B 27% 23% 17% C 9% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 28% 46% Average 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 30 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 45% 47% 47% B 41% 23% 23% C 14% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 15% 17% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 31 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 52% 49% 48% B 39% 23% 22% C 9% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 17% 18% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 32 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 70% 67% B 35% 21% 23% C 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 33 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 66% 64% B 26% 21% 23% C 9% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 34 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 69% 67% B 30% 21% 24% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 35 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 35% 64% 63% B 48% 24% 23% C 17% 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 23 ## Page 36 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 13% 61% 63% B 26% 20% 20% C 48% 9% 8% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 9% 3% 4% No Grade 2% 2% Average 2.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 24 ## Page 37 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 23% 51% 51% B 41% 24% 24% C 23% 11% 11% D 5% 5% 5% Fail 9% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% Average 2.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 25 ## Page 38 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 22% 62% 62% B 35% 21% 21% C 26% 8% 8% D 9% 4% 4% Fail 9% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% Average 2.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 26 ## Page 39 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 57% 58% B 35% 23% 23% C 17% 9% 9% D 5% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 27 ## Page 40 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being consistent in his/her behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 32% 58% 58% B 27% 22% 23% C 27% 9% 9% D 9% 3% 3% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 4% Average 2.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 28 ## Page 41 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 39% 57% 59% B 39% 23% 23% C 17% 9% 9% D 5% 4% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 29 ## Page 42 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 61% 62% B 35% 24% 23% C 17% 8% 7% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.2 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 30 ## Page 43 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 54% 53% B 43% 24% 24% C 9% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 31 ## Page 44 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 35% 55% 56% B 52% 19% 17% C 4% 4% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 9% 20% 20% Average 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 32 ## Page 45 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 59% 51% 45% B 32% 18% 15% C 5% 5% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 22% 33% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 33 ## Page 46 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 45% 47% B 35% 26% 25% C 9% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 9% 15% 14% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 34 ## Page 47 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 48% 48% B 39% 28% 28% C 9% 11% 11% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 6% 5% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 35 ## Page 48 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for his/her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 39% 47% 47% B 43% 27% 27% C 4% 10% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 13% 11% 9% Average 3.4 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 36 ## Page 49 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicatedand time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 39% 48% 47% B 48% 22% 22% C 4% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 17% 17% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 37 ## Page 50 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 36% 38% 37% B 32% 16% 16% C 5% 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 27% 37% 37% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 38 ## Page 51 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 4% 3% 4 3% 3% 3 6% 6% 2 4% 13% 12% 1 9% 18% 16% 74% 49% 49% -1 4% 4% 4% -2 4% 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 4% 1% 1% -5 0% 1% Average -0.1 0.8 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 39 ## Page 52 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Marcucci are? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 2% 4 3% 2% 3 5% 5% 2 5% 9% 9% 1 9% 13% 12% 64% 59% 58% -1 5% 4% 5% -2 5% 2% 2% -3 14% 2% 2% -4 0% 1% -5 0% 1% Average -0.4 0.5 0.4 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 40 ## Page 53 Judge John M. Marcucci Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 81% 73% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 14% 17% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 41 ## Page 54 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.3 3.3 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.3 3.3 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.7 Q5. Overall Application 3.2 of Law 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 55 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.2 3.3 3.6 1a. Giving proceedings a 3.3 sense of dignity 3.4 3.7 1b. Treating participants 3.3 politely and with respect 3.4 3.8 1c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 3.2 manner 3.3 3.6 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.1 understanding 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 56 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.6 2a. Giving participants an 3.3 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.6 2b. Treating those involved 3.2 with the case without bias 3.2 3.6 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.2 represent themselves 3.3 3.6 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.3 case 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John M. Marcucci All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 57 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.4 3.5 3.7 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.4 proceedings 3.4 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.4 everyone can understand 3.5 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so 3.5 everyone can hear 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 58 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.5 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.2 3.7 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.6 4c. Setting reasonable 3.3 schedules for cases 3.3 3.7 4d. Being prepared for his or 3.3 her cases 3.4 3.5 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.3 little wasted time 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 59 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.2 3.2 3.7 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.2 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.2 outside pressure 3.2 3.7 5c. Being able to identify and 3.2 analyze relevant facts 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John M. Marcucci Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 60 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is toward the defense or prosecution? John M. 0 Marcucci All County 0.2 Judges All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 61 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Marcucci's sentences? John M. -0.3 Marcucci All County 0 Judges All Trial Judges -0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 62 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 90% 85% 80% 74% 72% 70% 67% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 11%11% 11%11% 10%10% 10% 10%10% 9% 10% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Marcucci Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 63 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 58% 60% B 11% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 8% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 64 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 75% 61% 63% B 13% 19% 19% C 5% 9% 8% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 2% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 65 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 80% 59% 61% B 8% 19% 18% C 2% 9% 8% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 2% 5% 5% No Grade 7% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 66 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 54% 56% B 14% 20% 20% C 5% 10% 9% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 2% 7% 6% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 67 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 60% 62% B 16% 21% 20% C 3% 7% 7% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 5% 4% No Grade 5% 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 68 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 58% 60% B 13% 19% 18% C 5% 7% 7% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 2% 7% 7% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 69 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 47% 45% B 11% 15% 14% C 5% 6% 5% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 6% 5% No Grade 18% 23% 29% Average 3.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 70 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 67% 57% 59% B 19% 20% 19% C 3% 8% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 7% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 71 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 75% 63% 64% B 14% 20% 19% C 6% 8% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 72 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 63% 64% B 11% 21% 21% C 10% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 73 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 66% 66% B 13% 20% 20% C 5% 7% 7% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 74 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 50% 52% B 16% 25% 25% C 13% 11% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 5% 4% No Grade 8% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 75 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 63% 64% B 16% 22% 21% C 3% 7% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 76 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 48% 51% B 16% 23% 21% C 2% 8% 8% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 16% 15% 14% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 77 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being prepared for his or her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 74% 56% 58% B 11% 21% 19% C 2% 8% 7% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 4% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 78 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 53% 54% B 23% 25% 24% C 6% 10% 10% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 79 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 52% 54% B 13% 20% 20% C 2% 9% 8% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 6% 5% No Grade 11% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 80 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 65% 48% 50% B 13% 17% 16% C 3% 7% 7% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 2% 6% 6% No Grade 16% 18% 18% Average 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 81 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Marcucci on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 74% 53% 55% B 8% 19% 18% C 2% 8% 7% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 3% 6% 6% No Grade 11% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 82 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Marcucci is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 4% 3% 4 3% 2% 3 2% 2% 2% 2 2% 3% 3% 1 7% 6% 6% 83% 68% 70% -1 2% 4% 4% -2 2% 3% 3% -3 3% 2% -4 2% 1% 2% -5 2% 2% Average 0.0 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 83 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Marcucci are? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 5% 4% 4 2% 3% 2% 3 3% 3% 2 3% 3% 1 4% 4% 74% 60% 62% -1 11% 6% 7% -2 9% 6% 6% -3 2% 5% 5% -4 2% 2% 2% -5 3% 2% Average -0.3 0.0 -0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 84 Judge John M. Marcucci Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Marcucci be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Marcucci Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 90% 72% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 3% 11% 11% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 6% 5% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 7% 11% 11% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 85 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2004. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in November 2004, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2004 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 86 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 719 394 7 69 9 60.6% Attorney For Defendant 2,219 1,040 17 218 24 52.0% Guardian ad Litem 131 79 0 10 1 65.3% Unknown Attorney Type 5,378 2,170 56 751 88 46.9% Attorney Total 8,447 3,683 80 1,048 122 49.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 3,111 916 55 672 3 37.6% Employee 1,739 976 18 224 0 64.4% Defendant 12,171 1,620 148 2,439 27 16.6% Plaintiff 3,617 881 66 500 11 28.3% Juror 4,488 1,632 117 511 15 41.0% Victim 552 83 11 101 2 18.4% Other 1,650 222 25 373 8 17.4% Non-attorney Total 27,328 6,330 440 4,820 66 28.1% Total 35,775 10,013 520 5,868 188 33.5% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 87 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2004, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2004 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 88 Judge John M. Marcucci Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 39 23 0 5 1 67.6% Attorney For Defendant Guardian ad Litem 1 0 0 0 0 0.0% Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 40 23 0 5 1 65.7% Defendant 159 4 2 49 0 3.6% Plaintiff 6 1 1 0 0 16.7% Law Enforcement 75 36 2 13 0 58.1% Employee 18 9 0 2 0 56.3% Juror Victim 70 6 0 19 1 11.8% Other 78 7 1 28 0 14.0% Sub Total: 406 63 6 111 1 21.4% Grand Total: 446 86 6 116 2 26.1% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 89 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Attorney Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ 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 do not 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. Case Management: A B C D F NA a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. [District only] Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Diligence: a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Continued on Back] 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 90 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge _ in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _ ? _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 91 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ 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 do not 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 NA 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 2. Fairness: a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 3. Communications: a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Diligence: a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Application of Law: 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 6. [If you were in Judge _’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Other Side ## Page 92 7. [If you were in Judge _ ’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge _ as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what would you tell your friend about Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _? _ _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated.

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

• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2004 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2000 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1996 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026