Jennifer Lynn Melton
Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
Meets Standards2 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2025 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The First Judicial District Commission agrees (9-0, one abstention) Judge Jennifer Lynn Melton MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Of the ten commissioners, one did not vote due to absence. Judge Melton is a county court judge, appointed in July 2019, and presides over a mixed docket of criminal, misdemeanor, and civil cases. Judge Melton was observed to have an even-tempered and practical courtroom demeanor. Comments noted her fairness in sentencing, in which she takes into account criminal history, rehabilitation potential, financial situation, and future threat to the community. She is known and appreciated for her commitment to mentoring attorneys who are new to practicing law. The District Attorney’s Office and the Office of Public Defender commented that Judge Melton’s courtroom is a good place for new attorneys to learn as she takes time following trials to provide feedback if asked. Evaluations and feedback indicate Judge Melton can often move too quickly, specifically in the afternoon docket, and she needs to be more conscious of addressing Victim Rights Act (VRA) issues. Going forward, she has committed to slowing down the pace to ensure that all parties in her courtroom have adequate time for case presentation and understand the legal basis for her decisions. Judge Melton’s evaluation was based on integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the community In evaluating Judge Melton’s performance, The Commission conducted a personal interview with her, observed her in the court, and reviewed the 2025-2026 survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys appearing before her. The Commission additionally received feedback from the chief judge, the District Attorney, and the head of the Public Defender Office. The Commission reviewed Judge Melton’s self-evaluation, and written rulings and orders she has issued. Judge Melton attended Texas A&M University on an athletic scholarship for swimming. After graduation, she attended Texas Tech University School of Law on an academic scholarship. Following law school, Judge Melton clerked for the Honorable Max Osborne of the Texas Court of Appeals. In 1995, she moved to Colorado and practiced civil and domestic law with a small private law firm. In 2008 she was awarded contracts from the offices of Alternate Defense Counsel (ADC) and Respondent Parent Counsel (ORPC). Subsequently, she started her own solo practice specializing in criminal defense and dependency and neglect (child welfare) cases.
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Jefferson · JeffersonCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 71.2% yes156,888 yes · 63,520 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2021 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Jennifer Lynn Melton MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Melton is a County Court judge who presides over criminal, misdemeanor, and traffic matters in Jefferson County. Judge Melton was consistently described as being a fair judge and having a pleasant courtroom demeanor. Judge Melton strives to create a culture of inclusion and civility in her courtroom, and she has succeeded in doing so. Reviews mention that her opinions and sentencing orders are clearly explained using plain language that is understandable to non-attorneys. She takes the time to ensure that her rulings are understood. Judge Melton was recognized in statements from the District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Public Defender as being a mentor to new attorneys who appear in her courtroom and for fostering their professional development. Judge Melton is described as having a good knowledge of the law and an enthusiasm for improving her work. She is described as fair, and even tempered. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Melton, reviewed opinions she authored and a motion hearing transcript, observed her in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had appeared in Judge Melton’s courtroom. With respect to the judicial performance survey responses completed by attorneys and non-attorneys, Judge Melton has consistently high marks in the survey categories of case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. Judge Melton heeded the Commission’s suggestions from her interim evaluation and made appropriate improvements that are reflected in her favorable judicial performance survey responses and the Commission’s review of her performance. Judge Melton was appointed to the County Court in July of 2019. Judge Melton attended Texas A&M University on an athletic scholarship for swimming and received her Bachelor of Arts in 1990. She attended Texas Tech University School of Law on an academic scholarship and earned her Juris Doctor in 1993. After law school, Judge Melton worked as a law clerk in the Texas Court of Appeals. In 1995, Judge Melton moved to Colorado and practiced civil and domestic law for ten years with a small, private law firm. In 2008, Judge Melton opened her own law firm that specialized in criminal defense and child welfare cases. As a solo practitioner, she was awarded contracts with the Alternative Defense Counsel and the Office of Respondent Parent Counsel. Judge Melton serves as the chairperson and regional coordinator for the Jefferson County High School Mock Trial Program. Judge Melton also serves on the Alternative Sentencing Committee for the First Judicial District, which hosts the “Fresh Start” event. Primer Distrito Judicial Jueza del Tribunal del condado de Jefferson Honorable Jennifer Lynn Melton La Comisión sobre Desempeño Judicial del Primer Distrito Judicial acuerda por unanimidad, con un voto de 10-0, que la Jueza Jennifer Lynn Melton CUMPLE CON LAS NORMAS DE DESEMPEÑO. Las normas de desempeño judicial de las leyes de Colorado son integridad, conocimiento de la ley, habilidades de comunicación, temperamento judicial, desempeño administrativo y servicio a la profesión jurídica y al público. La Jueza Melton es una jueza del Tribunal del condado que supervisa asuntos penales, de delitos menores y asuntos de tránsito en el condado de Jefferson. La Jueza Melton fue descrita constantemente como una jueza justa, con una actitud agradable en el tribunal. La Jueza Melton se esfuerza por crear una cultura de inclusión y civismo en su tribunal, y lo ha logrado. Según los comentarios, se observa que sus opiniones y órdenes de sentencia se explican claramente mediante un lenguaje sencillo, comprensible para quienes no son abogados. Dedica el tiempo necesario para asegurarse de que se entiendan sus fallos. La Jueza Melton fue reconocida en declaraciones de la Fiscalía del Distrito y de la Defensoría Pública por ser una mentora de los abogados nuevos que comparecen ante su tribunal y por fomentar su desarrollo profesional. Se la describe como una buena conocedora de la ley y una entusiasta por mejorar su trabajo. Se la caracteriza como una persona ecuánime y de temperamento moderado. La Comisión efectuó una entrevista personal con la Jueza Melton, revisó opiniones de su autoría y una transcripción de una audiencia de moción, la observó en el tribunal, y analizó las respuestas de la encuesta de desempeño judicial de abogados y no abogados que habían comparecido ante el tribunal de la Jueza Melton. Con respecto a las respuestas de la encuesta de desempeño judicial completadas por abogados y no abogados, la Jueza Melton tiene constantemente calificaciones altas en las categorías de la encuesta sobre manejo de casos, aplicación y conocimiento de la ley, comunicaciones, diligencia, actitud y ecuanimidad. La Jueza Melton atendió las sugerencias de la Comisión en su evaluación preliminar e implementó las mejoras pertinentes que se reflejan en sus respuestas favorables de la encuesta de desempeño judicial y en la revisión de su desempeño por parte de la Comisión. La Jueza Melton fue nombrada para integrar el Tribunal del condado en julio de 2019. La Jueza Melton asistió a la Universidad A&M de Texas con una beca deportiva para natación y recibió su licenciatura en 1990. Asistió a la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Tecnológica de Texas con una beca académica y obtuvo su doctorado en Jurisprudencia en 1993. Después de haber asistido a la Facultad de Derecho, la Jueza Melton trabajó como asistente legal en el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Texas. En 1995, la Jueza Melton se mudó a Colorado y ejerció el derecho civil y doméstico durante diez años en un pequeño bufete de abogados privado. En 2008, la Jueza Melton abrió su propio bufete de abogados que se especializó en casos de defensa penal y de bienestar infantil. Como abogada independiente, obtuvo contratos con el Consejo de Defensa Alternativo y la Consejería de Padres Demandados. La Jueza Melton es presidenta y coordinadora regional del Programa de simulacros de juicios en escuelas preparatorias del condado de Jefferson. La Jueza Melton también forma parte del Comité de Sentencias Alternativas para el Primer Distrito Judicial, que organiza el evento “Fresh Start” (Empezar de cero).
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jennifer L. Melton 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Melton, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3 3 2 1 0 Judge Melton All County Judges Judge Melton All County Judges Overall Grade 3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 80% 79% 80% 69% 67% 60% 40% 26% 23% 20% 14% 13% 7% 8% 8% 5% 0% Judge Melton All County Judges Judge Melton All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Melton Melton Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 67% 80% 69% 79% standards No, does not meet 26% 14% 23% 13% performance standards No opinion 7% 5% 8% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.1 Case Management 3.5 2.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.2 Communications 3.5 2.9 Diligence 3.4 2.9 Demeanor 3.4 3.2 Fairness 3.4 Judge Melton All County Judges Judge All County Melton Judges Case Management 3.1 3.5 Application and 2.9 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.2 3.5 Diligence 2.9 3.4 Demeanor 2.9 3.4 Fairness 3.2 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 46 16% 67% 31 Non-Attorneys 28 - - 23 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Melton received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 3 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.1 3.5 2.8 3.3 35 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.4 50 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.4 2.9 3.1 38 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.1 3.4 3 3.3 45 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.6 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3 3.3 2.8 3.4 47 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 27 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 2.6 3.3 2.6 N/A 26 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.5 3.2 2.5 N/A 28 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 28 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 20 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 18 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.9 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.2 3.5 3 3.4 48 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 17 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 21 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 21 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.6 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3 3.4 2.6 3.6 48 dignity Treating participants with respect 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.4 48 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.8 3.3 2.5 3.3 48 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 20 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.7 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 27 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 21 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 25 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 19 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 19 Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 18 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 13 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 11 ## Page 12 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 19 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Melton Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 18 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 18 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 16 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 18 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Melton, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 279 46 0 31 67% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 200 22 0 17 - Total Non-Attorneys - 28 - 23 - Total Respondents - 74 - 54 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 17 - 2026 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.
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jennifer L. Melton 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Melton, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3 3 2 1 0 Judge Melton All County Judges Judge Melton All County Judges Overall Grade 3 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 80% 79% 80% 69% 67% 60% 40% 26% 23% 20% 14% 13% 7% 8% 8% 5% 0% Judge Melton All County Judges Judge Melton All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Melton Melton Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 67% 80% 69% 79% standards No, does not meet 26% 14% 23% 13% performance standards No opinion 7% 5% 8% 8% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.1 Case Management 3.5 2.9 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.2 Communications 3.5 2.9 Diligence 3.4 2.9 Demeanor 3.4 3.2 Fairness 3.4 Judge Melton All County Judges Judge All County Melton Judges Case Management 3.1 3.5 Application and 2.9 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.2 3.5 Diligence 2.9 3.4 Demeanor 2.9 3.4 Fairness 3.2 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 46 16% 67% 31 Non-Attorneys 28 - - 23 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Melton received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.1 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 3 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.1 3.5 2.8 3.3 35 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.4 50 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.4 2.9 3.1 38 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.1 3.4 3 3.3 45 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.6 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Being able to identify and analyze 3 3.3 2.8 3.4 47 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 2.7 3.2 2.7 N/A 27 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 2.6 3.3 2.6 N/A 26 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.5 3.2 2.5 N/A 28 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 28 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 20 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 18 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.9 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Overall Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Making sure all participants 3.2 3.5 3 3.4 48 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 2.9 3.3 2.9 N/A 17 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 21 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 21 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.6 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving proceedings a sense of 3 3.4 2.6 3.6 48 dignity Treating participants with respect 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.4 48 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.8 3.3 2.5 3.3 48 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 20 those who appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Score 2.9 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 2.7 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.6 3.2 2.6 N/A 27 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 21 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 2.7 3.3 2.7 N/A 25 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 19 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 19 Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 18 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 13 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 11 ## Page 12 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 19 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Melton Score 3.2 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Melton County Judges Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 18 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 18 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 16 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 18 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Melton, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Interim, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 14 ## Page 15 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 15 ## Page 16 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 279 46 0 31 67% Staff 6 0 6 - Others 200 22 0 17 - Total Non-Attorneys - 28 - 23 - Total Respondents - 74 - 54 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 17 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.5judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend83%56 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend78%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Jennifer L. Melton 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 12 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 13 Methodology and How to Read Results . 13 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 16 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Melton, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Melton All County Judges Judge Melton All County Judges Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 83% 83% 83% 78% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 13% 13% 12% 9% 4% 4% 6% 0% Judge Melton All County Judges Judge Melton All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge County County Melton Melton Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 83% 83% 78% 83% standards No, does not meet 13% 13% 9% 12% performance standards No opinion 4% 4% 13% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.4 3.4 Fairness 3.3 Judge Melton All County Judges Judge All County Melton Judges Case Management 3.5 3.4 Application and 3.4 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.4 Fairness 3.4 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 56 19% 48% 27 Non- 32 - - 27 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Melton received 0 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Melton Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 34 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.7 47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 37 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 46 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Melton Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.4 County Judge Melton Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.4 47 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 23 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 22 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 24 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 25 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 21 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Melton Attorneys 3.3 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.7 County Judge Melton Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.6 49 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 15 thorough and well- reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 26 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 26 what’s being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 3.5 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.5 County Judge Melton Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 48 Treating participants with respect 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 48 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 23 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Melton Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Melton Attorneys 3.5 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.6 County Judge Melton Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Judges Non- Score Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 23 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 19 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 21 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 23 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 23 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 22 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 22 Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 23 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Melton Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Melton Attorneys 3.4 Judge Melton Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Melton County Judge Melton Judge Melton Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 23 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.4 3.3 N/A 3.4 23 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 19 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 21 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.5 47 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 23 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Melton, 54 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 54 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 13 ## Page 14 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 14 ## Page 15 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 302 56 27 48% Staff - 6 6 - Others 393 25 20 80% Juror - 1 1 - Citizen Feedback - 0 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 32 27 - Total Respondents - 88 54 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Jennifer L. Melton 16
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
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026