Robert L. McGahey Jr.

Evaluation history

• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(No Opinion)
  VotersRetained· 73.0% yes

  107,869 yes · 39,909 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 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, on a vote of 10-0, recommends that Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr., BE RETAINED. Judge McGahey was appointed to the Denver District Court bench in December 1999. Judge McGahey earned his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and his law degree from the University of Denver. Before becoming a judge, Judge McGahey practiced as an insurance defense trial lawyer, where he tried over 100 jury trials. Judge McGahey engages in legal and non-legal community service activities, He has served numerous times as an instructor for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy at the Rocky Mountain and Southern Deposition Programs, the Rocky Mountain Regional Trial Program, the Rocky Mountain Children's Advocacy Program, and the U.S. Tax Court Program. He recently took over leadership of the Judicially Speaking Program for the Denver Public Schools. Judge McGahey also teaches trial tactics as an adjunct professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He has also taught at the University of Colorado School of Law. During the present term, Judge McGahey presided over civil and criminal courtrooms and currently presides over a civil courtroom. The Commission reviewed survey results from lawyers and non-lawyers, the judge’s self-evaluation and two written orders, one oral order, and one appellate decision reviewing one of the judge's decisions. Selected members of the Commission observed Judge McGahey in court. The Commission then interviewed Judge McGahey. Of attorneys responding to the survey, 84% recommended retention, 8% recommended against retention, and 8% expressed no opinion on retention. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 89% recommended retention, 4% recommended against retention, and 7% expressed no opinion. Judge McGahey’s survey results revealed an overall combined average rating well above that of the combined rating of all district court judges standing for retention. While the attorneys rating Judge McGahey rated him slightly below the average for judges standing for retention this cycle, the non-attorneys rating Judge McGahey scored him well above the average. Reviewing the survey results, the Commission has concerns related to comments about Judge McGahey’s temper and impatience with lawyers appearing before him. Attorneys surveyed specifically appreciated Judge McGahey’s consistency in issuing criminal sentences, while the non-attorneys also appreciated the judge’s ability to maintain appropriate control over the courtroom and his willingness to make decisions without regard to outside pressure. The Commission is impressed with Judge McGahey’s innovative approach to resolving disputes among parties during civil cases, which he attributes to his ability to keep cases moving through the system.
• 2008 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Denver · Denver

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 75.0% yes

  126,538 yes · 42,257 no50% needed to 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 Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. BE RETAINED. Background: Judge McGahey was appointed to the Denver District Court bench in December 1999. Prior to his appointment, Judge McGahey was in private practice, specializing in insurance defense matters. He received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1971, and his law degree from the University of Denver College of Law. In his first year, Judge McGahey heard domestic relations matters. Since then, he has presided over both a civil and a criminal courtroom and currently hears a variety of civil matters. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge McGahey from attorneys and non-attorneys. Respondents were asked to rate Judge McGahey in five major categories: demeanor, fairness, communication, diligence and application of the law. Also, the Commission considered a self-evaluation completed by Judge McGahey, written opinions by Judge McGahey, and conducted a personal interview with him. Strengths: In many categories, ratings for Judge McGahey from non-attorneys were above those given by attorneys. The ratings by non-attorneys were significantly above those for other Colorado district court judges being considered for retention this year. These positive comments from non-attorneys stem from Judge McGahey’s high marks with regard to his courtroom demeanor, treating all parties fairly, especially pro se litigants, and making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. During Judge McGahey’s interview with the Commission, he attributed these high marks from non-attorneys to his management of the courtroom docket as well as being open and communicative with all parties. Judge McGahey emphasizes his role as a mediator, getting parties to reach agreement without the stress and expense of a formal trial. Among attorneys, he was rated highly for management of his docket and promptness in issuing orders and rulings. Recommendation: Among the attorneys responding to the survey, 95% favored retention. Among non-attorneys responding to the survey, 97% favored retention.
• 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 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. BE RETAINED. Judge McGahey was appointed to the Denver District Court bench in December 1999. Prior to his appointment, Judge McGahey was in private practice, specializing in insurance defense matters. He received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University in 1971, and his law degree three years later from the University of Denver College of Law. In his first year on the bench, Judge McGahey heard domestic relations matters, and now hears a variety of civil cases. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge McGahey from attorneys and non-attorneys. Respondents were asked to rate Judge McGahey in six major categories: courtesy, impartiality, communication, temperament, diligence and application of the law. Also, the Commission considered a self-evaluation completed by Judge McGahey and conducted a personal interview with him. In many categories, ratings for Judge McGahey from non-attorneys were below those given by attorneys. The ratings by non-attorneys were generally below those for other Colorado District Court judges being considered for retention this year. Negative comments from non-attorneys regarding impartiality were discussed in Judge McGahey’s interview with the Commission. He attributed these and other low ratings to conditions in Domestic Relations Court, where he sees that any ruling on child custody, support payments, division of marital property or any other unpleasant issue is likely to result in dissatisfaction with the judge by at least one of the two contending parties. Judge McGahey emphasizes his role as a mediator, getting parties to reach agreement without the stress and expense of a formal trial. Other judges often transfer cases to him to utilize his skill as a mediator. Among attorneys, he was rated highly for management of his docket and promptness in issuing orders and rulings. Among the attorneys responding to the survey, 88% favored retention, 6% favored non-retention and 5% had no opinion. Among non-attorneys responding to the survey, 69% favored retention, 15% favored non-retention and 16% had no opinion.

Surveys & reports

• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2nd Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Robert L. McGahey, Jr. City & County Bldg. 1437 Bannock St., Room 256 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge McGahey: 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. Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 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, district judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.22, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.75, Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr.’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49. Judge McGahey Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.49 3.22 3.75 Sample Size - 101 257 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge McGahey from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge McGahey’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge McGahey Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 3.68 3.50 8 3.86 118 2007 3.39 3.45 21 3.32 33 2008 3.72 3.51 3 3.92 23 2009 3.35 3.19 36 3.50 22 2010 3.43 3.05 33 3.80 61 Overall 3.49 3.22 101 3.75 257 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 district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 66%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for district judges was 1 There were no surveys conducted based on cases that closed in 2006. See methodology section for more details. 1 ## Page 5 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge McGahey’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2005 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges. Judge McGahey Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All District Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2005 3.87 115 97% 3.42 3 3% 3.84 3.25 2007 3.88 13 39% 2.93 20 61% 3.86 3.31 2008 3.94 22 96% 3.35 1 4% 3.87 3.30 2009 3.79 17 77% 2.55 5 23% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.86 57 93% 2.75 4 7% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.87 224 87% 2.92 33 13% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge McGahey’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110011)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District Sample Size = 101 A B C D Fail DK/NA McGahey, Jr. Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 43% 15% 3% 4% 3% 33% 3.34 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 24% 11% 3% 3% 0% 3.33 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 50% 23% 11% 4% 2% 10% 3.28 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 21% 13% 6% 3% 5% 3.20 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.29 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 30% 9% 4% 2% 3% 3.30 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 29% 2% 6% 5% 15% 3.16 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 21% 11% 4% 6% 18% 3.04 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 28% 31% 5% 5% 2% 30% 3.12 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 24% 8% 1% 1% 1% 3.53 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 26% 4% 4% 8% 14% 3.08 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.31 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 54% 25% 12% 3% 5% 1% 3.22 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 50% 27% 14% 4% 5% 1% 3.13 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 48% 30% 9% 10% 3% 1% 3.10 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 51% 25% 10% 7% 3% 4% 3.20 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.16 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 54% 19% 14% 4% 6% 3% 3.15 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 54% 24% 10% 3% 6% 3% 3.21 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 16% 11% 3% 3% 15% 3.31 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.22 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.22 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District McGahey, Jr. Judges Sample Size = 101 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 33% 26% Completely neutral 48% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 15% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 3% 4% 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 76% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 6% Total Retain 86% 88% Total Not Retain 14% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 6% Total Retain 83% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 4% Total Not Retain 13% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.22 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.29 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.34 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.33 proceedings. 3.41 3.28 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.20 3.26 3.16 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.30 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.16 3.14 3.04 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.12 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.31 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.53 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.08 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.16 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.22 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.13 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.10 in a neutral manner. 3.29 3.20 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.22 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.15 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.21 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.31 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 48% Completely Neutral 47% 15% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 3% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge McGahey, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain 72% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge McGahey, All Dist Jr. Judges 5% Total Retain 86% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 14% 12% 6% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 69% 9% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Judge McGahey, All Dist 3% Jr. Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 83% 84% Undecided or DK 3% 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 13% 12% 6% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 225577)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District Sample Size = 257 A B C D Fail DK/NA McGahey, Jr. Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 16% 3% 0% 0% 1% 3.78 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 14% 2% 1% 1% 0% 3.73 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 15% 3% 0% 1% 0% 3.74 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 74% 19% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3.65 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.73 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 15% 4% 0% 2% 1% 3.70 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 47% 7% 2% 0% 0% 43% 3.77 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 11% 4% 1% 0% 2% 3.77 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.74 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 87% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3.81 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 86% 10% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 89% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3.85 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.83 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 65% 27% 5% 1% 0% 2% 3.58 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 87% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.84 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 3% 0% 0% 11% 3.76 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 83% 10% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3.82 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 20% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.67 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.73 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 76% 12% 4% 0% 1% 6% 3.72 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 9% 2% 1% 1% 21% 3.76 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 12% 2% 1% 1% 12% 3.75 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.74 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District McGahey, Jr. Judges Sample Size = 257 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 10% 8% Competely neutral 88% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 1% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.15 0.07 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% 8% Competely neutral 89% 82% Lenient sentencing total 4% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.11 0.04 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 93% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 4% Total Retain 98% 95% Total Not Retain 2% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 89% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 4% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 4% Total Retain 93% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 5% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.75 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.73 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.78 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.73 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.74 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.65 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.74 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.70 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.73 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.77 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.77 or her case. 3.69 3.83 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.81 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.82 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.85 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.73 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.58 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.76 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.82 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.67 little wasted time. 3.58 3.74 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.72 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.76 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.75 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.15 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.11 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge McGahey, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 93% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Judge McGahey, All Dist Jr. Judges Total Retain 98% 95% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 2% 6% 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 4% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 4% Judge McGahey, All Dist Undecided 5% Jr. Judges Total Retain 93% 90% 1% Undecided 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 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. 16 ## Page 20 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. 17 ## Page 21 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. 18 ## Page 22 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. 19 ## Page 23 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. 20 ## Page 24 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 21 ## Page 25 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 McGahey 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. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 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 51 31 1 0 19 38.0% Defense Attorneys 88 63 1 0 24 27.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 61 24 7 0 30 55.6% Other Attorneys Civil 60 34 0 0 26 43.3% GAL 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 262 152 9 0 101 39.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Witness 6 0 3 1 2 66.7% Other 97 65 26 0 6 8.5% Law Enforcement 128 102 18 1 7 6.4% Defendant 112 59 42 2 9 12.9% Civil Litigant 31 20 3 2 6 21.4% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 22 25 0 3 12.0% Jurors 490 202 58 5 224 51.9% Employees 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 916 472 175 11 257 34.7% Grand Total: 1178 624 184 11 358 36.0% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 5963 3735 108 3 2117 36.2% Defense Attorneys 9005 5407 125 0 3473 39.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 310 260 2 1 47 15.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9795 4329 410 17 5039 53.7% Other Attorneys Civil 6107 3564 63 4 2476 41.0% GAL 101 43 5 0 53 55.2% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 193 60 22 0 111 64.9% Total Attorneys 31474 17398 735 25 13316 43.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 149 85 40 3 21 19.3% Witness 13212 6730 4190 587 1705 18.9% Other 5595 3441 1430 55 667 16.0% Law Enforcement 13854 7651 3233 295 2674 25.2% Defendant 40047 19046 17527 241 3226 14.3% Civil Litigant 23266 13519 5107 291 4337 23.9% Witness 618 306 139 15 158 33.0% Other 679 317 150 18 194 36.7% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2763 1447 1003 4 309 17.6% Jurors 48708 18523 2771 544 26770 58.3% Employees 905 283 121 66 435 55.5% Total Non-attorneys 149796 71348 35711 2119 40496 35.5% Grand Total: 181270 88746 36446 2144 53812 37.2% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 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. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 13316 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.40 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 24% 11% 6% 4% 8% 3.14 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 20% 10% 6% 4% 21% 3.02 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 23% 9% 4% 3% 26% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 24% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 12% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 7% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 20% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.33 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 19% 7% 3% 2% 14% 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 13316 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 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 72% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 40496 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.65 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.66 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.67 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.64 4d.Being prepared for cases. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.71 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 1% 3% 18% 3.64 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 40496 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 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.07 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 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.04 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2nd Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Denver District Court 1437 Bannock St., Room 256 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge McGahey: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) 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 six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. 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. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. received an overall combined average grade of 3.48 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.23, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.73, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge McGahey Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.48 3.23 3.73 Sample Size - 149 155 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge McGahey’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge McGahey Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 3.72 3.51 3 3.92 23 2009 3.35 3.19 36 3.50 22 2010 3.43 3.05 33 3.80 61 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.52 3.38 77 3.65 49 Overall 3.48 3.23 149 3.73 155 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.80, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge McGahey’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge McGahey Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.85 127 82% 3.12 28 18% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 114499)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District Sample Size = 149 A B C D Fail DK/NA McGahey, Jr. Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 43% 14% 4% 3% 2% 35% 3.42 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 57% 24% 11% 4% 2% 1% 3.32 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 24% 13% 2% 2% 10% 3.29 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 26% 14% 5% 2% 4% 3.19 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.31 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 50% 31% 10% 6% 1% 3% 3.26 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 50% 26% 8% 8% 3% 6% 3.18 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 29% 21% 10% 6% 5% 30% 2.91 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 44% 8% 3% 0% 15% 3.21 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 59% 28% 7% 1% 1% 4% 3.50 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 48% 24% 8% 6% 5% 10% 3.16 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.33 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 54% 26% 10% 4% 4% 1% 3.23 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 50% 27% 14% 4% 4% 1% 3.15 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 48% 29% 11% 8% 3% 1% 3.14 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 49% 27% 12% 6% 2% 4% 3.19 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.18 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 20% 15% 6% 3% 5% 3.15 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 28% 9% 5% 4% 3% 3.21 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 14% 10% 3% 2% 20% 3.34 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.23 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.23 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District McGahey, Jr. Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 31% 27% Completely neutral 50% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 14% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 6% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 60% 56% Recommend retain 24% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% 8% Recommend not retain 4% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 84% 80% Neither 8% 8% Total Not Retain 8% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.23 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.42 case after trial. 3.44 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.29 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.19 3.28 3.14 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.26 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.18 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 2.91 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 3.21 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.33 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.50 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.16 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.18 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.23 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.15 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.14 neutral manner. 3.28 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.23 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.15 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.21 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.34 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 31% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 50% Completely Neutral 46% 14% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 6% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge McGahey, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? 60% Strongly recommend retain 56% 24% Recommend retain 24% 8% Judge McGahey, All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Jr. Judges* Total Retain 84% 80% 4% Neither 8% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 8% 11% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Robert L. McGahey, Jr. * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District No Robert L. Judges* Evaluations of Judge McGahey, Jr. = 16 A B C D Fail Grade McGahey, Jr. Judge McGahey, Jr. in terms of overall performance as a judge. 50% 31% 6% 6% 0% 6% 3.33 3.46 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRoobbeerrtt LL.. MMccGGaahheeyy,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 115)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District Sample Size = 155 A B C D Fail DK/NA McGahey, Jr. Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 15% 3% 1% 0% 2% 3.74 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 79% 14% 3% 1% 3% 1% 3.66 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 16% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3.69 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 17% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.67 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3.67 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 84% 6% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.73 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 56% 5% 3% 0% 3% 33% 3.69 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 10% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.74 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.71 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 86% 7% 3% 2% 1% 1% 3.78 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 84% 10% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.80 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 88% 8% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.86 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.81 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 68% 22% 6% 2% 0% 2% 3.58 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 89% 7% 3% 0% 0% 1% 3.87 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 75% 11% 3% 0% 1% 9% 3.75 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 86% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.81 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 77% 13% 4% 1% 1% 4% 3.71 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.74 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 77% 11% 4% 1% 1% 6% 3.72 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 71% 6% 3% 1% 1% 20% 3.80 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 9% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.70 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.74 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.73 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Robert L. All District McGahey, Jr. Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 5% 8% Competely neutral 93% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 1% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.15 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 7% 8% Competely neutral 90% 82% Lenient sentencing total 4% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.18 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 76% 75% Recommend retain 13% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 4% Total Retain 89% 88% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.73 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.67 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.74 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.66 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.69 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.58 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.71 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.67 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.73 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.74 or her case. 3.70 3.81 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.78 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.86 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.74 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.58 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.87 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.75 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.81 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.71 little wasted time. 3.61 3.74 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.72 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.80 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.70 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.15 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 0.05 All District 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 0.18 Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 0.01 All District 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. Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge McGahey, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? 76% Strongly recommend retain 75% 13% Recommend retain 13% 7% Neither retain nor not retain Judge McGahey, All Dist 6% Jr. Judges* 0% Total Retain 89% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Robert L. McGahey, Jr. All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 15 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a 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, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District 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 district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district 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 district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-seven appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district 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 district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 19 ## Page 23 e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sixteen questionnaires were returned, though not all 16 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a 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, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District 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 district judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District 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. 21 ## Page 25 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 McGahey 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 District Judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Robert L. McGahey, Jr. 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 38 24 0 0 14 36.8% Defense Attorneys 77 53 2 0 22 29.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 26 13 0 0 13 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 187 84 5 0 98 53.8% GAL 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 330 174 7 0 149 46.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Witness 6 0 3 1 2 66.7% Law Enforcement 13 10 3 0 0 0.0% Defendant 47 17 26 1 3 14.3% Civil Litigant 35 15 5 3 12 40.0% Jurors 311 139 40 5 127 46.9% Employees, including Interpreters 25 9 5 0 11 55.0% Probation Officers 2 1 0 1 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 440 192 82 11 155 43.3% Grand Total: 770 366 89 11 304 44.6% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3105 1702 353 0 1050 38.2% Defense Attorneys 4381 2309 386 0 1686 42.2% Other Attorneys Criminal 164 88 10 0 66 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3667 1426 237 0 2004 58.4% Other Attorneys Civil 4136 1945 378 0 1813 48.2% GAL 34 11 2 0 21 65.6% Total Attorneys 15487 7481 1366 0 6640 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 55 28 18 0 9 24.3% Witness 5936 3024 1701 304 907 21.4% Other 58 32 13 3 10 22.2% Law Enforcement 5118 2861 1236 140 881 22.7% Defendant 17993 7871 8866 117 1139 12.5% Civil Litigant 8137 4580 1905 149 1503 24.1% Witness 122 51 34 3 34 38.6% Other 221 78 56 8 79 47.9% Jurors 17789 7033 1065 254 9437 56.4% Employees, including Interpreters 1120 450 172 21 477 50.3% Probation Officers 65 19 0 5 41 63.1% Total Non-attorneys 56614 26027 15066 1004 14517 34.9% Grand Total: 72101 33508 16432 1004 21157 38.0% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6640 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 6% 2% 1% 20% 3.44 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 26% 9% 3% 2% 12% 3.30 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 4% 3% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 10% 6% 6% 24% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 26% 11% 5% 4% 14% 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.50 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 10% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 5% 5% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3.34 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 18% 6% 3% 2% 15% 3.43 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 80% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14517 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 10% 3% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.66 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.68 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.69 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 71% 19% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.61 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.67 4d.Being prepared for cases. 80% 10% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 13% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.63 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 9% 2% 1% 2% 17% 3.67 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 11% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 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 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges* DK/ Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014. 23% 16% 2% 1% 0% 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. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 35 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 38 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Randall C. Arp ............... A B C D F Barbara L. Hughes ........ A B C D F Jack W. Berryhill............ A B C D F Thomas K. Kane ........... A B C D F Margie L. Enquist .......... A B C D F Thomas L. Kennedy ...... A B C D F Ann Gail Meinster .......... A B C D F Michael P. McHenry ...... A B C D F Lily W. Oeffler ................ A B C D F David Prince .................. A B C D F Tamara S. Russell ......... A B C D F Gregory R. Werner........ A B C D F Chistopher C. Zenisek ... A B C D F 5th Judicial District 2nd Judicial District Frederick W. Gannett .... A B C D F Martin F. Egelhoff .......... A B C D F Russell H. Granger ....... A B C D F J. Eric Elliff ..................... A B C D F Mark D. Thompson ....... A B C D F A. Bruce Jones .............. A B C D F 6th Judicial District Elizabeth Leith ............... A B C D F Suzanne F. Carlson ...... A B C D F John W. Madden, IV ...... A B C D F 7th Judicial District Robert L. McGahey, Jr. . A B C D F Mary Deganhart ............ A B C D F Sheila A. Rappaport ...... A B C D F Charles R. Greenacre ... A B C D F Elizabeth A. Starrs ........ A B C D F J. Steven Patrick ........... A B C D F Michael J. Vallejos ........ A B C D F James W. Schum .......... A B C D F 4th Judicial District 8th Judicial District William B. Bain .............. A B C D F Julie Kunce Field........... A B C D F Edward S. Colt, II .......... A B C D F Thomas R. French ........ A B C D F Jann P. DuBois.............. A B C D F Stephen E. Howard ....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 39 9th Judicial District No Grade 20th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Denise Lynch................. A B C D F Ingrid S. Bakke .............. A B C D F 10th Judicial District Maria E. Berkenkotter ... A B C D F William D. Alexander ..... A B C D F Patrick D. Butler ............ A B C D F Victor I. Reyes ............... A B C D F Judith L. LaBuda ........... A B C D F Andrew R. Macdonald .. A B C D F 11th Judicial District David M. Thorson .......... A B C D F 21st Judicial District David A. Bottger ............ A B C D F 12th Judicial District Thomas M. Deister........ A B C D F Michael A. Gonzales ..... A B C D F Brian J. Flynn ................ A B C D F 13th Judicial District 22nd Judicial District Kevin L. Hoyer ............... A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F Douglas R. Vannoy ....... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Shelley A. Hill ................ A B C D F 17th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr. A B C D F sheet for comments you would like to make John E. Popovich, Jr. .... A B C D F about any of these district judges. Ted C. Tow, III ............... A B C D F Mark D. Warner ............. A B C D F Francis C. Wasserman .. A B C D F Craig R. Welling ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Michelle A. Amico .......... A B C D F F. Stephen Collins ......... A B C D F Paul A. King................... A B C D F Charles M. Pratt ............ A B C D F Gerald J. Rafferty .......... A B C D F Theresa M. Slade .......... A B C D F Elizabeth B. Volz ........... A B C D F John L. Wheeler ............ A B C D F Vincent R. White ........... A B C D F 19th Judicial District Timothy G. Kerns .......... A B C D F Marcelo Kopcow ............ A B C D F 2 ## Page 40 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 41 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4
• 2008 cycle
  • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

• 2002 cycle
  • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 March 4, 2002 The Honorable Robert L. McGahey, Jr. City & County Bldg. 1436 Bannock St., Room 256 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge McGahey, 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 Robert L. McGahey, 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 Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 65% 65% B 14% 20% 21% C 7% 6% 7% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 4% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 60% 61% B 19% 22% 22% C 5% 8% 8% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 43% 48% B 6% 13% 14% C 2% 4% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 57% 37% 29% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 61% 63% B 12% 11% 12% C 3% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 34% 24% 19% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 65% 66% B 13% 12% 14% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 14% 14% 12% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 66% B 12% 12% 13% C 2% 3% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 19% 18% 15% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 64% 65% B 13% 12% 13% C 3% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 20% 15% 13% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 61% 60% B 15% 17% 17% C 4% 8% 8% D 3% 4% 5% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 6% 5% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 36% 47% 51% B 7% 10% 11% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 55% 38% 31% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 61% 59% B 8% 10% 12% C 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 32% 23% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 42% 37% B 25% 23% 23% C 1% 9% 9% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 29% 21% 27% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 55% 54% B 22% 27% 28% C 5% 9% 9% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 54% 54% B 17% 25% 26% C 6% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 64% 64% B 16% 20% 21% C 5% 6% 7% D 4% 3% 4% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 57% 57% B 13% 22% 22% C 5% 8% 8% D 9% 4% 5% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 5% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 45% 46% B 23% 27% 27% C 3% 11% 11% D 1% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 19% 9% 8% Average Grade 3.6 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 55% 54% B 26% 28% 28% C 5% 8% 9% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on using court time efficiently? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 54% 54% B 23% 26% 25% C 4% 10% 10% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 75% 59% 58% B 16% 22% 23% C 4% 7% 7% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 49% 49% B 15% 18% 18% C 3% 7% 7% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 27% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 32% 33% B 7% 13% 13% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 51% 46% 45% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 57% 53% B 16% 24% 25% C 5% 8% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 49% 49% B 18% 25% 25% C 2% 8% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 16% 11% 13% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 45% 44% B 16% 29% 29% C 9% 11% 12% D 1% 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.1 3.1 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 51% 50% B 9% 20% 20% C 1% 8% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 27% 16% 15% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge McGahey Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 88% 85% 84% Do not retain in office 6% 10% 11% No opinion 5% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 68% 67% B 13% 19% 19% C 5% 5% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 13% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.1 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 44% 47% B 13% 14% 15% C 4% 4% 5% D 4% 1% 2% Fail 13% 2% 2% No Grade 24% 35% 30% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 68% 65% B 15% 14% 14% C 5% 3% 4% D 11% 1% 1% Fail 5% 1% 2% No Grade 18% 13% 14% Average Grade 3.0 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 70% 67% B 15% 15% 16% C 11% 4% 5% D 7% 1% 2% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 8% 9% Average Grade 3.0 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 70% 67% B 13% 15% 16% C 13% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 20% 9% 10% Average Grade 3.4 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 69% 66% B 9% 15% 15% C 11% 4% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 13% 2% 3% No Grade 15% 9% 9% Average Grade 2.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 68% 65% B 15% 15% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 15% 4% 4% No Grade 13% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 35% 40% 43% B 7% 11% 12% C 11% 3% 4% D 1% 2% Fail 9% 2% 3% No Grade 38% 44% 37% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 66% 63% B 15% 16% 16% C 16% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 15% 2% 3% No Grade 9% 9% 11% Average Grade 2.8 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 72% 70% B 18% 18% 19% C 13% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.3 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 71% 69% B 18% 18% 18% C 16% 5% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 7% 1% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.2 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 74% 72% B 15% 15% 16% C 13% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 11% 1% 2% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.1 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 68% 66% B 13% 16% 17% C 7% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 16% 3% 3% No Grade 15% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 57% 56% B 13% 21% 22% C 7% 8% 8% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on starting court on time? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 59% 57% B 29% 22% 23% C 9% 8% 9% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 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 Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on being prepared for cases? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 66% 64% B 18% 17% 18% C 5% 5% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 15% 2% 2% No Grade 18% 9% 9% Average Grade 2.9 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 63% 62% B 11% 15% 16% C 4% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 16% 3% 4% No Grade 13% 11% 11% Average Grade 2.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 69% 67% B 15% 14% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 20% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.3 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 64% 62% B 9% 17% 18% C 5% 5% 6% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 20% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge McGahey Jr. on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 57% 55% B 7% 13% 14% C 7% 4% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 3% No Grade 36% 22% 22% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 2 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Robert L. McGahey Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge McGahey Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial McGahey Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 69% 85% 83% Do not retain in office 15% 7% 8% No opinion 16% 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 Robert L. McGahey Jr. Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney Attorney For Defendant 61 37 13 4 7 74.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 89 57 18 5 9 76.0% Guardian ad Litem 1 1 100.0% Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 151 95 31 9 16 75.4% Law Enforcement Social Services Caseworker Employee 5 1 4 20.0% Defendant 107 13 60 28 6 17.8% Plaintiff 138 29 78 28 3 27.1% Juror 13 9 3 1 75.0% Victim Other 12 3 9 25.0% Sub Total: 275 55 154 57 9 26.3% Total: 426 150 185 66 25 44.8% 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

• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026