← All judges

Gale T. Miller

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

  • 2012 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 70.9% yes
    1,351,119 yes · 555,074 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Gale T. Miller BE RETAINED. Judge Miller was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2008. He received a B.A. in English, graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Augustana College in Illinois in 1968. He earned his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1971, where he was Order of the Coif and Managing Editor of the Law Review. Upon graduation, Judge Miller worked for two years as a trial attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. In 1973 Judge Miller joined the law firm of Davis Graham & Stubbs in Denver, specializing in commercial litigation. Judge Miller is past chair of the Board of the Colorado Judicial Institute, Senior Housing Options, and the Colorado Lawyers Committee, where he received its Individual of the Year Award and Outstanding Sustained Contribution Award. He has received the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association’s Community Service Award. Judge Miller currently serves on the Colorado Access to Justice Commission and the executive committee of Our Courts, a program created to teach the public about the court system. Judge Miller had a relatively small sample pool due to his short time on the bench. Those attorneys responding to the most recent survey indicate that his performance is comparable to the other Court of Appeals judges standing for retention. Based on the survey data for all three years Judge Miller has been on the bench, his performance was somewhat weak in writing opinions that are clear, in adequately explaining the basis of the court’s decision, and in making reasoned decisions based on law and facts. Judge Miller is relatively new on the court, and he recognizes his need to improve his opinion writing, as well as to learn about other areas of law outside of his private practice in complex civil litigation. Based on his performance in the last year it appears to the Commission that he is succeeding in these endeavors. Many attorneys commented that in oral arguments Judge Miller is courteous and maintains a good demeanor. Other comments indicate that Judge Miller is intelligent and thoughtfully addresses issues before the court. District judges and other appellate judges responding to the survey indicate that Judge Miller’s performance is comparable to the other judges standing for retention. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 72% recommended to retain, 16% not to retain, and 12% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 82% recommended to retain and 18% not to retain. Of all judges surveyed, 72% recommended to retain, 1% not to retain, and 27% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 98% recommended to retain and 1% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

  • 2012 cycle
    • 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full interim survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaallee TT.. MMiilllleerr 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 18th, 2011 The Honorable Gale T. Miller Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Miller: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases before a Court of Appeals panel of which you were a member or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the survey, and a breakout of results by year since 2005 or when you were sworn in, whichever is most recent. 2. The numerical results of the survey 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 questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The third section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides copies of the questions that were used for the survey. 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: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Gale T. Miller an overall average grade of 3.01. The average attorney grade for all Court of Appeals Judges was 3.31. The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through the first quarter of 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Judge Miller’s overall average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Judge Miller Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Miller All COA Judges Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Size Score Size 2005 3.61 163 2006 3.52 134 2007 3.43 357 2008 3.32 650 2009 3.02 20 3.28 995 2010 2.99 28 3.21 1,060 All Years 3.01 48 3.31 3,359 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed from 2005 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Judges who were appointed after 2005 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaallee TT.. MMiileerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4488)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Gale T. Miller Sample Size = 48 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Miller All COA Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 50% 25% 4% 6% 10% 4% 3.02 3.23 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 46% 13% 10% 2% 6% 23% 3.16 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 48% 10% 0% 4% 8% 29% 3.21 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 52% 13% 10% 2% 4% 19% 3.31 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 44% 4% 4% 0% 2% 46% 3.62 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 40% 15% 15% 2% 4% 25% 3.11 3.41 Question 2 Average Grade 3.24 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 42% 19% 19% 4% 12% 4% 2.80 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 35% 23% 12% 12% 15% 4% 2.52 3.06 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 46% 23% 12% 4% 8% 8% 3.04 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 54% 8% 12% 4% 12% 12% 3.00 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 42% 12% 19% 12% 15% 0% 2.54 2.92 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 35% 23% 15% 4% 12% 12% 2.74 3.16 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 2.77 3.14 Overall Average Grade: 3.01 3.31 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Gale T. Miller Sample Size = 48 Judge Miller All COA Judges 6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Miller be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 50% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 31% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 9% Total Retain 81% 84% Total Not Retain 19% 16% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 44% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 27% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 13% 11% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 8% Total Retain 71% 75% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 11% Total Not Retain 16% 15% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Gale T. Miller Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.01 Overall average grade 3.31 3.24 Question 2 average grade 3.48 3.02 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.23 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.16 answer questions. 3.41 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.21 economic status. 3.52 3.31 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.51 3.62 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.79 3.11 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.41 2.77 Question 3 average grade 3.14 2.80 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.16 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.52 basis of the Court's decision. 3.06 3.04 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.30 3.00 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.26 2.54 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.92 2.74 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.16 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Miller All COA Judges 4 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 8 Judge Gale T. Miller Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Miller be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain 66% 31% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Judge Miller All COA Judges 7% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 81% 84% 7% Total Not Retain 19% 16% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 44% Strongly recommend retain 59% 27% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 13% Undecided or Don't Know Judge Miller All COA Judges 11% Total Retain 71% 75% Undecided or DK 13% 11% 6% Total Not Retain 16% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Miller All COA Judges 5 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a similar list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. These lists included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys‟ offices. All attorneys from the Supreme Court opinions list and the Court of Appeals opinions list were assigned to evaluate justices or judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the justice. 4. If at this point there were still several justices or judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the justice or judge with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still several justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, he or she was either randomly assigned to one of them, or assigned to the justice or judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes. 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 second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 seven Supreme Court 7 ## Page 11 justices or COA judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 5 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to seven justices or 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. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. The list of seven justices or judges could include both justices and judges. If an attorney had more than seven possible justices or judges he or she could potentially evaluate, Supreme Court justices were assigned to that attorney first. 4. If there were more than seven justices or judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the justices or judges with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still more than seven justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, justices or judges were either randomly assigned to available list slots or were assigned to the justices or judges with the smallest sample sizes. 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 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney would be asked to evaluate all seven justices if the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and the full three- judge panel if the case was heard by the Court of Appeals—not just the justices or judges who had written the opinion, concurrences or dissents. Because some of the survey questions refer specifically to the justice‟s or judge‟s legal writing, a question was added to the questionnaire asking “Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Justice/Judge„s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them?” If the respondent answered “No” or “Don‟t Know” to this question he or she was not asked about the justice‟s or judge‟s writings. A copy of the list of the Attorney Regarding Appellate Judges questions is reprinted in the last section of this report. In addition to attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, COA staff attorneys were also surveyed in 2010. 8 ## Page 12 The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through March 2011 for those questions that have been consistently asked of attorneys during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been 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 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 data only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 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. 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 justice‟s or judge‟s strengths and what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice or 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, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked 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. 9 ## Page 13 d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 COA judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all COA 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 Court of Appeals 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 Appellate 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 Appellate 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 22.0% for Supreme Court justices and 17.4% for Court of Appeals. 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. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Judge Miller is shown below. Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable Evaluations Rate Judge Miller 614 566 0 48 7.8% All Court of Appeals 19,604 15,913 295 3,359 17.4% Judges All Appellate Judges 25,254 20,265 358 4,588 18.4% (SC and COA) 10 ## Page 14 Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated. From 2005 to 2008 a total of 1,963 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys regarding appellate justices and judges. Nine hundred and thirty (930), or 47.4%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Correspondingly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 6,681 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey regarding appellate justices and judges, of which 22.5% (1500 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a justice or judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 2.4 judges.1 1 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 justices and judges who are active at this writing. 11 ## Page 15 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 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges nor the District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges is 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 or justice 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. 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 3359 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 56% 18% 9% 6% 5% 7% 3.23 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 53% 17% 6% 3% 3% 18% 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 9% 4% 3% 3% 24% 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 6% 2% 2% 18% 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 51% 4% 2% 0% 1% 43% 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 50% 14% 7% 2% 2% 24% 3.41 Question 2 Average Grade 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 26% 11% 6% 3% 7% 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 24% 12% 8% 5% 7% 3.06 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 26% 11% 3% 2% 8% 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 7% 4% 4% 22% 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 49% 19% 11% 10% 9% 2% 2.92 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 47% 19% 10% 4% 5% 15% 3.16 Question 3 Average Grade 3.14 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 13 ## Page 17 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 3359 Average Grade 6. 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 66% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 84% Total Not Retain 16% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 11% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 75% Undecided/Don't Know 11% Total Not Retain 15% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the justice, please check DK/NS for Don't Know/Not Sure. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [ Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. 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 the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1
    • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee GGaallee TT.. MMiilllleerr 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report Court of Appeals ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Gale T. Miller Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Miller: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; 2) Court of Appeals staff attorneys; and 3) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Court of Appeals non-attorney employees were also asked to evaluate the judges (using the non-attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey (which includes Court of Appeals staff attorneys) and the district/appellate judge survey. 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 district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Gale T. Miller March 26, 2012 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss 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. Attorneys assigned Judge Gale T. Miller an overall average grade of 3.14, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Judge Miller an overall average grade of 3.65, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.40. Judge Miller Average Grades (All Years) District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.40 3.14 3.65 Sample Size - 77 100 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. The table below shows Judge Miller's overall average grades from attorneys for each year in which survey results are available, compared to the overall average grades for all Court of Appeals judges standing for retention in 2012. Judge Miller Average Attorney Grades by Year All COA Judge Miller Retention Judges Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Size Score Size 2005 3.75 20 2006 3.67 27 2007 3.46 90 2008 3.34 178 2009 3.02 20 3.32 314 2010 2.99 28 3.18 332 2011 3.35 29 3.32 194 All Years 3.14 77 3.31 1155 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaallee TT.. MMiileerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Gale T. Miller All Court of Appeals Sample Size = 77 Retention A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Miller Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 51% 26% 5% 5% 8% 4% 3.12 3.20 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 55% 13% 9% 1% 4% 17% 3.38 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 49% 12% 1% 4% 7% 28% 3.27 3.51 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 57% 14% 9% 1% 3% 16% 3.44 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 46% 3% 5% 0% 1% 45% 3.67 3.81 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 43% 18% 12% 1% 3% 22% 3.27 3.43 Question 2 Average Grade 3.36 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 23% 16% 2% 9% 2% 2.98 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 40% 26% 14% 7% 12% 2% 2.76 3.06 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 51% 21% 16% 2% 5% 5% 3.17 3.39 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 51% 16% 12% 5% 7% 9% 3.10 3.24 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 42% 19% 16% 12% 12% 0% 2.67 2.91 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 37% 26% 14% 2% 9% 12% 2.89 3.11 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 2.93 3.15 Overall Average Grade: 3.14 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Gale T. Miller All Court of Appeals Sample Size = 77 Retention Judge Miller Judges 6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Miller be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 54% 65% Somewhat recommend retain 28% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 8% Total Retain 82% 83% Total Not Retain 18% 16% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 47% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 25% 17% Undecided or Don't Know 12% 10% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 7% Total Retain 72% 76% Undecided/Don't Know 12% 10% Total Not Retain 16% 14% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Gale T. Miller Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.14 Overall average grade 3.31 3.36 Question 2 average grade 3.48 3.12 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.20 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.38 answer questions. 3.44 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.27 economic status. 3.51 3.44 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.51 3.67 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.81 3.27 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.43 2.93 Question 3 average grade 3.15 2.98 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.16 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 2.76 basis of the Court's decision. 3.06 3.17 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.39 3.10 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.24 2.67 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.91 2.89 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.11 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Miller All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 5 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Judge Gale T. Miller Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Miller be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 54% Strongly recommend retain 65% 28% Somewhat recommend retain Excluding Und/DK Respondents 18% All COA Retention 9% Judge Miller Judges Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 82% 83% Total Not Retain 18% 16% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 47% Strongly recommend retain 59% 25% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Including Und/DK Respondents All COA 12% Retention Undecided or Don't Know 10% Judge Miller Judges Total Retain 72% 76% Undecided or DK 12% 10% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 16% 14% 7% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Miller All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee GGaallee TT.. MMiileerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110)) ## Page 11 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Gale T. Miller All Court of Sample Size = 100 Appeals Retention A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge Miller Judges 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 40% 17% 5% 0% 0% 38% 3.56 3.57 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 40% 20% 5% 0% 0% 35% 3.53 3.49 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 40% 19% 6% 0% 0% 35% 3.52 3.48 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 37% 14% 3% 0% 0% 46% 3.63 3.61 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 41% 16% 1% 0% 0% 41% 3.69 3.68 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 42% 13% 7% 0% 0% 38% 3.56 3.54 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 41% 14% 4% 0% 0% 40% 3.63 3.55 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 53% 3% 0% 1% 0% 43% 3.89 3.89 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 43% 2% 0% 0% 1% 54% 3.86 3.89 Overall Average Grade: 3.65 3.63 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Gale T. Miller Sample Size = 100 All Court of Appeals Retention Judge Miller Judges 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 83% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% 14% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 1% Total Retain 98% 97% Total Not Retain 1% 3% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 60% 67% Somewhat recommend retain in office 12% 11% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 27% 20% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 1% Total Retain 72% 78% Undecided/Don't Know 27% 20% Total Not Retain 1% 3% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Judge Gale T. Miller Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.65 Overall average of 1 through 9 3.63 3.56 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.57 3.53 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.49 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.52 Court's decision. 3.48 3.63 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.61 3.69 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.68 3.56 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.54 3.63 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.55 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.89 status. 3.89 3.86 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.89 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Miller All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 10 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 14 Judge Gale T. Miller Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain 83% 16% Somewhat recommend retain Excluding Und/DK Respondents 14% All COA Retention 1% Somewhat recommend not retain Judge Miller Judges 2% Total Retain 98% 97% Total Not Retain 1% 3% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 67% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 11% Including Und/DK Respondents All COA 27% Retention Undecided or Don't Know 20% Judge Miller Judges Total Retain 72% 78% 1% Undecided or DK 27% 20% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 1% 3% 2% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Miller All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 11 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Also included in the attorney population are the Court of Appeals staff attorneys. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges survey process:  Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention).  The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 13 ## Page 17 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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 to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the State 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. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 Court of Appeals retention judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals retention judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 14 ## Page 18 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2011, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 11.2% for Judge Miller and 18.5% for all Court of Appeals retention judges. Looking at only the 2011 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Miller is 40.8% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals retention judges is 38.6%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges standing for retention in 2012. This cooperation rate is based on data collected from 2005 to 2011. Also shown below is the cooperation rate for Judge Miller. As a provisional judge, the cooperation rate for Judge Miller is based on data collected since 2009. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Miller 734 608 49 77 11.2% All Court of Appeals 6625 5084 378 1155 18.5% Retention Judges II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-three (173) district judges and 28 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the appellate judge and the 15 ## Page 19 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. d. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all Court of Appeals judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for the questions regarding all Court of Appeals retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall 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 Court of Appeals retention 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 District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the report-judge. e. Cooperation Rate: Two hundred and one questionnaires were mailed (173 district judges and 28 appellate judges) and 104 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 16 ## Page 20 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 1155 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 55% 20% 9% 6% 5% 6% 3.20 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 19% 6% 3% 2% 16% 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 10% 3% 3% 3% 23% 3.51 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 16% 5% 2% 2% 16% 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 4% 1% 0% 1% 41% 3.81 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 16% 7% 2% 2% 21% 3.43 Question 2 Average Grade 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 27% 12% 4% 4% 5% 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 47% 24% 13% 7% 5% 4% 3.06 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 26% 10% 2% 1% 7% 3.39 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 48% 18% 8% 4% 4% 17% 3.24 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 48% 20% 13% 9% 9% 2% 2.91 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 20% 10% 5% 6% 13% 3.11 Question 3 Average Grade 3.15 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 1155 Average Grade 6. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 65% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 83% Total Not Retain 16% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Undecided or Don't Know 10% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 76% Undecided/Don't Know 10% Total Not Retain 14% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 104 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 47% 17% 5% 1% 0% 30% 3.57 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 45% 22% 6% 1% 0% 26% 3.49 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 19% 8% 1% 0% 26% 3.48 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 41% 14% 4% 0% 0% 41% 3.61 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 2% 0% 0% 35% 3.68 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 49% 15% 7% 1% 1% 28% 3.54 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 3% 1% 1% 31% 3.55 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 3% 1% 1% 0% 37% 3.89 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 46% 2% 0% 1% 0% 51% 3.89 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 104 Average Grade 10. Recommend retain/not retain. Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 83% Somewhat recommend retain in office 14% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% Total Retain 97% Total Not Retain 3% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 67% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 20% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% Total Retain 78% Undecided/Don't Know 20% Total Not Retain 3% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 25 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 26 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1 ## Page 27 S1 Please answer the enclosed questions about the one Supreme Court Justice and the six Court of Appeals Judges who are eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. BAR CODE GOES HERE Page 12 ## Page 28 S2 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. No A B C D F Grade Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 2. Writing opinions that are clear. No A B C D F Grade Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 29 S3 F. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the space below. If you 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the would like to make more comments than space allows, feel Court’s decision. free to attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge John R. Webb in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you. Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 30 S4 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Dennis A. Graham in the space below. If you would like to No make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a A B C D F Grade sheet with additional comments. Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge facts. Gale T. Miller in the space below. If you would like to make No more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet A B C D F Grade with additional comments. Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 31 S5 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Laurie A. Booras in the space below. If you would like to decided. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or James S. Casebolt in the space below. If you would like to economic status. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ Page 8 Page 5 ## Page 32 S6 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge A B C D F Grade Miller Taubman Webb Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. A. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Nathan B. Coats in the space below. If you would like to Justice Judge make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a Coats Booras sheet with additional comments. Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 _ Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ _ _ Judge Judge _ Casebolt Graham Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Page 6 Page 7

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