← All judges

Paul A. Markson

Trial Court · Denver · Denver

Meets Standards(Retain)3 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Denver · Denver
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Paul A. Markson, Jr. BE RETAINED. The Commission’s recommendation was not unanimous. Judge Markson was appointed to the Denver District Court bench in January 1981. Prior to his appointment, Judge Markson was a Chief Deputy District Attorney in Denver. He received his undergraduate degree from St. John’s in Minnesota, and his law degree from the University of Colorado. Following graduation from law school, Judge Markson served in the Army for two years, which included a tour of duty in Vietnam. Judge Markson grew up in Minneapolis. He has 12 children, 10 of whom are adopted, and 16 grandchildren. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Markson completed by attorneys and non-attorneys. The Commission also considered a self-evaluation completed by Judge Markson and conducted two personal interviews with him. Judge Markson received well-below average ratings from attorneys, but much better ratings from non-attorneys, though several non-attorneys made critical comments as well. Criticism of the judge appears to stem from his outbursts of temper. Concerns about the judge’s temper have surfaced in prior evaluations. Judge Markson recognizes that his outbursts are inappropriate. Though he believes his temper flares more often when he presides in the Drug Court, Judge Markson makes no excuse for such behavior and claims to have made progress in controlling his temper. The Commission is concerned about a pattern of intemperate behavior demonstrated by Judge Markson in his years on the bench. Nevertheless, considering the entirety of Judge Markson’s judicial performance, and his commitment to improve control over his temper while on the bench, the Commission recommends that Judge Markson be retained. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 59% recommended that Judge Markson be retained, 30% recommended that he not be retained and 11% expressed no opinion. Among non-attorneys, 87% recommended that Judge Markson be retained, 6% recommended that he not be retained and 6% expressed no opinion.
  • 1996 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Denver · Denver
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 62.5% yes
    67,506 yes · 40,516 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Judicial Performance Commission of the Second Judicial District recommends that Judge Markson BE RETAINED. Judge Markson graduated with a degree in English from St. John’s University in Minnesota in 1965 and obtained his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1968. After serving with the Army in Vietnam, Judge Markson spent one year as a law clerk to Colorado Supreme Court Justice Robert Lee, practiced private trial law for two and a half years, and then became a deputy district attorney in the Denver district attorney’s office from April 1973 to January 1981, when he was appointed to the Denver district court bench. In the past 15 years Judge Markson has been assigned to the criminal, domestic relations and civil divisions of the district court. In his last Judicial Performance review in 1990, Judge Markson received criticism concerning lack of courtesy and patience. In the 1996 survey of attorneys, 89.3% agreed that Judge Markson is courteous in his work, an improvement consistent with one of the goals the judge set in 1990. Judge Markson is married and has 12 children, 10 of whom are adopted. In August 1994, Judge Markson was arrested in Glendale, Colorado and charged with driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages. In December 1994 he pleaded guilty as charged and  he received probation, a fine, and he completed court-ordered community service and alcohol education classes. The Commission has reviewed all available official court records concerning the violation and Judge Markson’s actions in response to it.  The Arapahoe County Probation Department completed a standard alcohol evaluation, and concluded that Judge Markson does not have an alcohol problem. Judge Markson has no other alcohol-related charges or convictions. The Commission views a DUI conviction of a judge as a serious matter. However, when viewed in the light of Judge Markson’s overall exemplary record as a district judge, the mitigating circumstances of the violation, and the judge’s candor, remorse and assurances that his violation was an unusual event that will not occur again, the Commission concludes that it was an isolated occurrence that has not affected his performance as a judge and should not affect his retention as a judge. The Commission is satisfied that he handled it appropriately, it will not occur again, and that it is a closed chapter. Judge Markson is highly rated in survey results that indicate that he finds facts without public influence, treats all parties equally, displays appropriate knowledge of the law and evidence, and that he works hard, displays compassion and does very well in all other areas of judicial work. More than 96% of the attorneys surveyed recommended retention. Written survey results showed that 96.7% of attorneys, 80% of courthouse personnel, and 87.5% of jurors favored retention; 4.4% of courthouse personnel favored non-retention; and 3.3% of attorneys, 15.6% of courthouse personnel and 12.5% of jurors had no opinion.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Denver · Denver
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 69.8% yes
    53,495 yes · 23,180 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Markson graduated from St. John’s University in 1965, and received his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1968. He was admitted to the Colorado Bar in April 10, 1969. Markson served in the U.S. Army as a captain in intelligence from 1968 to 1970, one year of which was in Vietnam. After his discharge, he worked as a law clerk to Justice Robert Lee in the Colorado Supreme Court, and then spent almost two years with Madden & Strate in Denver practicing civil law. In 1973, Markson joined the Denver District Attorney’s office until his judicial appointment in January 1981. Markson is married and has 11 children, nine adopted. His home has been called a “mini United Nations.” Since his appointment, Markson has spent one year in domestic relations, two years on the civil bench, one year as a roving judge for the statutory grand jury, and five years on the criminal bench, his current assignment. Markson likes being a judge and enjoys the “deep human drama.” By employing innovative management techniques, he has kept on top of imposed deadlines and has reduced his caseload to the fewest cases in the criminal division. He stresses the importance of a good working relationship among the district attorneys, public defenders, and court personnel and feels his court has that working relationship. The questionnaire responses received by the commission rated Judge Markson highly. He earned only favorable responses from the probation officers, law enforcement officers, jurors, litigants and court staff members polled. The attorneys were slightly more critical of Markson, but still rated him highly. The questionnaires rate Markson favorably in the areas of integrity, legal ability, communications skills, preparation, attentiveness and control over proceedings, docket management, punctuality and sentencing. There were some attorney responses which indicate a lack of courtesy on Markson’s part of the past. Markson is aware of this issue and has shown a marked improvement in dealings with other participants in the judicial process over the past few years. All groups rating Markson favored retention by a high margin.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Paul A. Markson, Jr. City & County Bldg. 1437 Bannock St., Room 256 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Markson, Jr.: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Paul A. Markson, Jr. Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 30% 65% 65% B 15% 20% 21% C 19% 6% 7% D 15% 3% 3% Fail 22% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average Grade 2.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 30% 60% 61% B 11% 22% 22% C 26% 8% 8% D 7% 4% 4% Fail 26% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 2.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 43% 48% B 11% 13% 14% C 22% 4% 6% D 4% 1% 2% Fail 26% 1% 2% No Grade 15% 37% 29% Average Grade 2.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 61% 63% B 22% 11% 12% C 19% 3% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 7% 1% 1% No Grade 7% 24% 19% Average Grade 3.0 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 65% 66% B 11% 12% 14% C 26% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 14% 12% Average Grade 3.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 64% 66% B 19% 12% 13% C 15% 3% 4% D 11% 1% 1% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 7% 18% 15% Average Grade 3.0 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 64% 65% B 15% 12% 13% C 15% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 15% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 15% 13% Average Grade 2.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 61% 60% B 11% 17% 17% C 22% 8% 8% D 4% 4% 5% Fail 15% 4% 4% No Grade 11% 6% 5% Average Grade 2.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 30% 47% 51% B 19% 10% 11% C 7% 3% 4% D 11% 1% 1% Fail 15% 1% 1% No Grade 19% 38% 31% Average Grade 2.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 61% 59% B 11% 10% 12% C 19% 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 15% 2% 2% No Grade 22% 23% 21% Average Grade 2.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade C+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 26% 42% 37% B 11% 23% 23% C 19% 9% 9% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 30% 21% 27% Average Grade 2.6 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 30% 55% 54% B 19% 27% 28% C 30% 9% 9% D 7% 3% 4% Fail 11% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 2.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 30% 54% 54% B 22% 25% 26% C 26% 9% 9% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 8% 7% Average Grade 2.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 26% 64% 64% B 11% 20% 21% C 19% 6% 7% D 11% 3% 4% Fail 30% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 1.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 22% 57% 57% B 15% 22% 22% C 22% 8% 8% D 15% 4% 5% Fail 22% 4% 4% No Grade 4% 5% 4% Average Grade 2.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 45% 46% B 37% 27% 27% C 15% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 7% 9% 8% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 55% 54% B 41% 28% 28% C 19% 8% 9% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on using court time efficiently? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 54% 54% B 41% 26% 25% C 19% 10% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 59% 58% B 22% 22% 23% C 22% 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 49% 49% B 15% 18% 18% C 30% 7% 7% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 7% 21% 21% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 32% 33% B 11% 13% 13% C 15% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 11% 2% 2% No Grade 26% 46% 45% Average Grade 2.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 57% 53% B 11% 24% 25% C 22% 8% 9% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 15% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 49% 49% B 19% 25% 25% C 15% 8% 8% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 22% 11% 13% Average Grade 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 45% 44% B 19% 29% 29% C 15% 11% 12% D 4% 5% 5% Fail 7% 4% 4% No Grade 19% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.9 3.1 3.1 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 51% 50% B 26% 20% 20% C 4% 8% 8% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 11% 3% 3% No Grade 15% 16% 15% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Markson Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 59% 85% 84% Do not retain in office 30% 10% 11% No opinion 11% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 68% 67% B 25% 19% 19% C 5% 5% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 44% 47% B 21% 14% 15% C 11% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 25% 35% 30% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 68% 65% B 19% 14% 14% C 4% 3% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 12% 13% 14% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 70% 67% B 19% 15% 16% C 5% 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 8% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 70% 67% B 17% 15% 16% C 6% 4% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 14% 9% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 69% 66% B 16% 15% 15% C 5% 4% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 13% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 68% 65% B 22% 15% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 11% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 40% 43% B 16% 11% 12% C 6% 3% 4% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 35% 44% 37% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 66% 63% B 22% 16% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 3% No Grade 16% 9% 11% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 72% 70% B 15% 18% 19% C 4% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 71% 69% B 15% 18% 18% C 5% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 74% 72% B 23% 15% 16% C 4% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 68% 66% B 19% 16% 17% C 11% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 8% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 57% 56% B 19% 21% 22% C 12% 8% 8% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on starting court on time? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 59% 57% B 22% 22% 23% C 7% 8% 9% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on being prepared for cases? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 66% 64% B 19% 17% 18% C 6% 5% 6% D 4% 1% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 16% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 63% 62% B 19% 15% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 4% No Grade 15% 11% 11% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 69% 67% B 15% 14% 16% C 7% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 64% 62% B 22% 17% 18% C 6% 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Markson Jr. on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 57% 55% B 15% 13% 14% C 5% 4% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 3% No Grade 26% 22% 22% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Markson Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Markson Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 87% 85% 83% Do not retain in office 6% 7% 8% No opinion 6% 8% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Paul A. Markson Jr. Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 26 7 11 3 5 38.9% Attorney For Defendant 41 20 14 1 6 58.8% Attorney for Plaintiff Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 67 27 25 4 11 51.9% Law Enforcement 129 32 63 3 31 33.7% Social Services Caseworker Employee 8 4 4 50.0% Defendant 162 18 62 77 5 22.5% Plaintiff Juror 54 32 15 5 2 68.1% Victim 6 2 2 1 1 50.0% Other 59 8 39 6 6 17.0% Sub Total: 418 96 185 92 45 34.2% Total: 485 123 210 96 56 36.9% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2

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