John J. Mitchel

Evaluation history

• 2006 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Montrose · Montrose

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 67.8% yes

  7,407 yes · 3,526 no50% needed to retain
  Report: 2006 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge John J. Mitchel BE RETAINED, with one abstention. Judge Mitchel presides over the largest case load in the Seventh Judicial District (approximately 4,300 new cases last year, in Montrose County alone), including cases that require immediate judicial intervention. In addition to County Court, Judge Mitchel presides over small claims court, drug court, and periodically sits as a district court judge by special appointment. Judge Mitchel’s workload consists of: 26% civil; 21% criminal; 17% traffic; 9% felony; 26% misdemeanor; and, 1% domestic relations. The Commission found Judge Mitchel to be a hard worker, a good listener, readily available, and ethical. His integrity as a judge is unquestionable. He acknowledges that the volume of cases in his court may lead to delay and some negative comments from litigants. He is a clear, plain speaking communicator who works hard at being prepared and loves his job. Judge Mitchel describes his strengths as his thoroughness and accurate research skills together with his ability to communicate with all types of people regardless of background, gender, or nationality. Judge Mitchel’s goals are to maintain fairness and impartiality, improve explanations of decisions and maintain his patience in spite of an ever increasing caseload. His overall objectives include staying abreast of the constant changes in the law and improving efficiencies in the court. Aside from his work on the bench, Judge Mitchel participates in public education projects and community work, but has withdrawn from some community service due to conflicts that arise with people appearing in his court. Judge Mitchel is a graduate of The Catholic University of America where he earned a bachelor of arts degree. He received his law degree from the University of Colorado. Judge Mitchel was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado in 1982. He spent sixteen years in private practice where he specialized in the defense of criminal cases, commercial and real estate law; before that he served two years as a deputy district attorney. He served two years as a substitute Montrose Municipal Court Judge before being appointed Montrose County Court Judge in June of 2000. The Judicial Performance Commission conducted a personal interview, reviewed Judge Mitchel’s self-evaluation and the results of the Talmey-Drake survey. 80% of attorneys responding to the survey recommended that Judge Mitchel be retained in office. Of the non-attorneys, 72% recommended retention. The Judicial Performance Commission of the Seventh Judicial District recommends that Montrose County Court Judge Mitchel BE RETAINED.
• 2002 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Montrose · Montrose

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge John J. Mitchel BE RETAINED Judge Mitchel is a graduate of the Catholic University of America, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree. He received his law degree from the University of Colorado. Judge Mitchel was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado in 1982. He spent 16 years in private practice, where he specialized in the defense of criminal cases, commercial and real estate law; and before that he served two years as a Deputy District Attorney. He served two years as a substitute Montrose Municipal Court Judge before being appointed Montrose County Court Judge in June of 2000. Judge Mitchel presides over the largest caseload in the Seventh Judicial District (approximately 3,700 cases per year), including cases that require immediate judicial intervention. In addition to county court, Judge Mitchel presides over small claims court, drug court and periodically sits as a district court judge by special appointment. Judge Mitchel’s workload consists of 35% civil, 10% domestic relations, 12% traffic, 20% felony, 1% juvenile and 22% misdemeanor cases. Judge Mitchel describes his strengths as his thoroughness and accurate research skills together with his ability to communicate with all types of people regardless of background, gender or nationality. Judge Mitchel’s goals for the next year are to be better prepared for every case, trust his instincts more and to develop constructive reactions to frustrations. His overall objectives are to provide better service and help to improve the quality of life in Montrose County. Judge Mitchel, aside from his work on the bench, is involved in community work, but has withdrawn from some community service due to conflicts that arise with people appearing in his court. The Commission conducted public hearings, interviews with attorneys and non-attorneys, a personal interview with the judge and reviewed the self-evaluation completed by Judge Mitchel. Seventy-nine percent of attorneys responding to the evaluation recommended that Judge Mitchel be retained in office. Of the non-attorneys, 67% recommended retention. The Commission found Judge Mitchel to be a hard worker, a good listener, readily available and ethical. His integrity as a judge is unquestionable. He acknowledges that the high volume of cases may lead to delays and some negative comments from litigants. He is a clear, plain-speaking communicator who works hard at being prepared and loves his job. The Commission recommends that Montrose County Court Judge Mitchel be retained.

Surveys & reports

• 2006 cycle
  • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoohhnn JJ.. MMiittcchheell 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 7th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable John J. Mitchel Montrose County Justice Center 1200 North Grand Ave., Bin A Montrose, CO 81401 Dear Judge Mitchel: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable John J. Mitchel Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.2 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.2 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.2 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.1 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.1 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.5 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John J. Mitchel County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.2 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.5 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.0 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.3 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.4 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.2 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.3 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.1 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.4 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.2 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John J. Mitchel County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 3.2 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.3 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.4 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 2.9 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.6 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.6 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.2 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 2.6 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.0 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.1 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.1 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.1 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 3.1 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.2 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.0 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.2 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.0 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 3.0 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.1 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 2.8 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 2.7 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 2.8 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 3.3 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.3 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.2 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 3.2 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.5 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.5 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 3.2 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 3.6 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.7 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 3.5 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Mitchel is toward the defense or prosecution? John J. Mitchel 1.5 County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Mitchel's sentences? John J. Mitchel 0.8 County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 70% 70% 61% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 15% 14%14% 13% 13% 13%13% 10% 9% 10% 5%5% 5% 5%5%5% 5% 4% 4% 4%4% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Mitchel Including Undecided C o u n t y J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 54% 56% B 22% 21% 21% C 13% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 4% 19% 17% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 53% 56% B 35% 29% 28% C 22% 11% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 52% 51% B 39% 30% 29% C 9% 10% 11% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 54% 53% B 35% 31% 31% C 13% 9% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 30% 28% 27% B 20% 17% 18% C 10% 5% 7% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 35% 47% 43% Average 3.2 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 61% 63% B 30% 26% 25% C 22% 8% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 43% 44% B 22% 25% 25% C 13% 7% 8% D 4% 1% 2% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 17% 24% 19% Average 3.1 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 48% 48% B 22% 21% 21% C 9% 4% 5% D 4% 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 13% 26% 24% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 52% 50% B 30% 29% 30% C 13% 8% 9% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 9% 8% 6% Average 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 50% 53% B 35% 28% 27% C 9% 9% 9% D 9% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 54% 57% B 35% 26% 25% C 9% 10% 9% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 37% 20% 28% B 21% 13% 15% C 11% 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 32% 58% 48% Average 3.4 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 35% 30% 29% B 13% 19% 20% C 13% 9% 9% D 13% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 26% 34% 33% Average 2.9 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 74% 50% 52% B 13% 31% 30% C 13% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 73% 55% 58% B 18% 29% 27% C 5% 8% 8% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 53% 57% B 30% 29% 27% C 17% 9% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 23% 38% 33% B 9% 23% 20% C 14% 6% 6% D 9% 3% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 41% 29% 37% Average 2.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 51% 53% B 26% 22% 22% C 9% 9% 8% D 13% 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 12% 12% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 52% 54% B 22% 23% 22% C 4% 7% 7% D 13% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 14% 14% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 72% 73% B 26% 21% 20% C 17% 5% 4% D 4% 1% 1% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 3.1 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 71% 71% B 30% 20% 20% C 6% 5% D 13% 2% 2% Fail 4% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.1 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 73% 74% B 30% 21% 20% C 9% 5% 4% D 4% 1% 1% Fail 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.2 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 66% 69% B 30% 22% 20% C 17% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 69% 70% B 13% 17% 17% C 17% 6% 6% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 9% 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 3.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 58% 59% B 17% 23% 22% C 22% 8% 9% D 9% 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 66% 69% B 13% 20% 18% C 22% 6% 6% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 62% 63% B 13% 20% 19% C 26% 9% 8% D 17% 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 63% 64% B 13% 22% 21% C 9% 8% 7% D 22% 3% 3% Fail 9% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 2.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 62% 63% B 17% 20% 19% C 22% 8% 8% D 13% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 68% 69% B 30% 20% 19% C 13% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 58% 59% B 22% 24% 23% C 17% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 60% 63% B 22% 16% 15% C 4% 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 9% 2% 1% No Grade 17% 16% 16% Average 3.2 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 56% 52% B 17% 15% 13% C 9% 4% 4% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 1% No Grade 17% 21% 28% Average 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 48% 52% B 35% 25% 23% C 9% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 14% 12% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 51% 53% B 26% 28% 27% C 17% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 4% 5% 4% Average 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 70% 49% 53% B 17% 28% 26% C 4% 9% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 9% 7% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 50% 53% B 22% 22% 21% C 4% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 13% 17% 15% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 39% 39% 41% B 13% 16% 16% C 5% 5% D 4% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 43% 38% 36% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Mitchel is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 5% 5% 3 42% 7% 7% 2 8% 12% 11% 1 33% 19% 18% 8% 47% 47% -1 3% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 8% 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 1.5 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Mitchel are? Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 3% 4% 3 5% 5% 2 31% 8% 9% 1 23% 15% 15% 46% 58% 55% -1 2% 3% -2 2% 3% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average 0.8 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Mitchel be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 70% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 15% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 5% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.0 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 2.9 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 2.9 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.2 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.2 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 2.9 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade John J. Mitchel County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 2.9 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.0 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 2.9 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 2.9 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 2.7 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 2.9 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.0 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 2.8 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 2.8 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 3.1 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.2 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.1 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.3 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 3.1 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.2 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.1 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 3.4 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 3.2 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 3.2 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.1 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 2.9 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 2.9 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.0 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 2.9 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 John J. Mitchel County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Mitchel is toward the defense or prosecution? John J. Mitchel 0.5 County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Mitchel's sentences? John J. Mitchel 0.2 County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 82% 79% 80% 75% 72% 70% 59% 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% 21% 20% 18% 13% 13% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6%6% 6% 3%3% 3%3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Mitchel S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 49% 65% 69% B 25% 23% 20% C 12% 7% 6% D 8% 2% 2% Fail 5% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 69% 72% B 19% 18% 17% C 11% 6% 5% D 10% 3% 2% Fail 10% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 2.9 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 66% 70% B 19% 19% 17% C 10% 6% 5% D 11% 4% 3% Fail 10% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 2.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 41% 62% 66% B 22% 20% 18% C 11% 7% 6% D 13% 4% 3% Fail 11% 5% 5% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 2.7 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 49% 68% 71% B 18% 17% 16% C 19% 6% 5% D 9% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 49% 66% 69% B 14% 17% 16% C 10% 6% 5% D 12% 4% 3% Fail 13% 5% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 2.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 44% 51% 49% B 17% 13% 11% C 8% 5% 4% D 10% 3% 2% Fail 12% 4% 4% No Grade 10% 25% 30% Average 2.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 65% 68% B 21% 17% 16% C 11% 6% 5% D 8% 3% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 5% Average 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 70% 73% B 28% 18% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 10% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 71% 74% B 29% 19% 18% C 14% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.3 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 53% 73% 75% B 20% 17% 16% C 14% 6% 5% D 7% 2% 1% Fail 4% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.1 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 52% 55% B 24% 26% 26% C 16% 11% 10% D 6% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.1 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 60% 69% 72% B 23% 20% 18% C 9% 6% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 1% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 56% 58% B 18% 20% 19% C 14% 7% 6% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 13% 12% Average 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 63% 67% B 19% 19% 17% C 12% 6% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 7% 7% Average 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 59% 61% B 26% 23% 23% C 12% 9% 8% D 8% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 59% 62% B 16% 19% 18% C 15% 7% 6% D 11% 3% 3% Fail 7% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 7% 7% Average 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 55% 58% B 16% 16% 14% C 9% 5% 5% D 7% 3% 2% Fail 10% 4% 3% No Grade 12% 17% 17% Average 3.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 60% 64% B 21% 18% 16% C 12% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 11% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 8% 8% Average 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Mitchel is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 8% 3% 2% 4 5% 2% 1% 3 5% 3% 2% 2 8% 3% 3% 1 11% 6% 5% 49% 75% 78% -1 3% 3% -2 4% 2% 2% -3 4% 1% 1% -4 2% 1% 1% -5 5% 2% 2% Average 0.5 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Mitchel are? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 5% 4% 3% 4 4% 2% 2% 3 4% 2% 2% 2 9% 3% 3% 1 10% 4% 4% 48% 69% 71% -1 6% 5% 5% -2 4% 4% 4% -3 1% 2% 2% -4 4% 1% 1% -5 5% 2% 2% Average 0.2 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 John J. Mitchel Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Mitchel be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 59% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 13% 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 8% 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 21% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 91 John J. Mitchel Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 5 3 1 1 0 75.0% Attorney For Defendant 21 12 6 3 0 66.7% Attorney for Plaintiff 13 8 3 1 1 72.7% Sub Total: 39 23 10 5 1 67.6% Defendant 404 55 203 142 4 21.3% Plaintiff 134 47 71 15 1 39.8% Law Enforcement 50 10 7 33 0 58.8% Employee 19 13 5 1 0 72.2% Juror 24 15 7 2 0 68.2% Other 7 1 6 0 0 14.3% Parole Officers 8 6 1 1 0 85.7% Sub Total: 646 147 300 194 5 32.5% Grand Total: 685 170 310 199 6 35.0% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? b. Maintaining appropriate control over _ proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Being prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ b. Willing to make decision without regard to _ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
• 2002 cycle
  • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 March 4, 2002 The Honorable John J. Mitchel Courts Bldg. 1200 North Grand Ave., Bin A Montrose, CO 81401-3146 Dear Judge Mitchel: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 4, 2002 The Honorable John J. Mitchel Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 64% 65% B 29% 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 64% 61% B 14% 20% 22% C 7% 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 55% 48% B 29% 17% 14% C 8% 6% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 16% 29% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 67% 63% B 14% 15% 12% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 7% 1% 1% No Grade 7% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.5 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 69% 66% B 14% 16% 14% C 5% 5% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 7% 1% 2% No Grade 8% 12% Average Grade 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 70% 66% B 14% 14% 13% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 14% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 66% 65% B 14% 15% 13% C 6% 5% D 14% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 60% 60% B 21% 18% 17% C 14% 9% 8% D 7% 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 58% 51% B 21% 14% 11% C 7% 6% 4% D 7% 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 7% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 56% 59% B 14% 15% 12% C 6% 4% D 7% 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 29% 37% B 7% 22% 23% C 7% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.8 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 51% 54% B 14% 30% 28% C 14% 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 53% 54% B 7% 27% 26% C 14% 10% 9% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 62% 64% B 21% 21% 21% C 7% 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 57% 57% B 14% 22% 22% C 14% 9% 8% D 7% 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 47% 46% B 21% 27% 27% C 11% 11% D 21% 4% 4% Fail 7% 3% 4% No Grade 7% 8% 8% Average Grade 2.8 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 51% 54% B 14% 27% 28% C 14% 11% 9% D 7% 3% 2% Fail 7% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 53% 54% B 14% 24% 25% C 29% 11% 10% D 7% 4% 3% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 56% 58% B 21% 25% 23% C 7% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 79% 48% 49% B 7% 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 14% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 35% 33% B 7% 14% 13% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 43% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.9 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 79% 47% 53% B 14% 28% 25% C 12% 9% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.8 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 48% 49% B 14% 24% 25% C 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 14% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 40% 44% B 21% 30% 29% C 7% 13% 12% D 7% 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 7% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.4 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 49% 50% B 14% 21% 20% C 7% 9% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 14% 4% 3% No Grade 14% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.0 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge John J. Mitchel Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Mitchel be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 79% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 14% 11% 11% No opinion 7% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 65% 67% B 20% 20% 19% C 10% 7% 6% D 11% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 6% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 49% 47% B 16% 16% 15% C 12% 6% 5% D 13% 2% 2% Fail 4% 3% 2% No Grade 13% 24% 30% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 63% 65% B 12% 15% 14% C 8% 4% 4% D 3% 1% 1% Fail 11% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.1 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 65% 67% B 12% 16% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 10% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 64% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 10% 6% 5% D 7% 2% 1% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 64% 66% B 13% 16% 15% C 9% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 11% 3% 3% No Grade 11% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 63% 65% B 12% 16% 16% C 8% 6% 5% D 8% 3% 2% Fail 8% 4% 4% No Grade 13% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 45% 43% B 18% 13% 12% C 6% 5% 4% D 9% 2% 2% Fail 11% 4% 3% No Grade 12% 31% 37% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 42% 60% 63% B 16% 16% 16% C 11% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 6% 3% 3% No Grade 24% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 68% 70% B 28% 20% 19% C 13% 6% 6% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 67% 69% B 22% 19% 18% C 10% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 9% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 69% 72% B 24% 17% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 8% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 64% 66% B 22% 18% 17% C 6% 6% 5% D 6% 3% 2% Fail 10% 4% 3% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 55% 56% B 16% 23% 22% C 16% 9% 8% D 6% 2% 3% Fail 10% 3% 2% No Grade 7% 9% 9% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 55% 57% B 26% 23% 23% C 16% 9% 9% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 10% 3% 2% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 61% 64% B 30% 19% 18% C 9% 7% 6% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 60% 62% B 17% 17% 16% C 10% 6% 5% D 8% 3% 2% Fail 8% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 64% 67% B 19% 17% 16% C 12% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 60% 62% B 12% 19% 18% C 9% 6% 6% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 10% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.0 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Mitchel on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 53% 55% B 18% 15% 14% C 8% 5% 5% D 10% 2% 2% Fail 8% 3% 3% No Grade 13% 21% 22% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge John J. Mitchel Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Mitchel be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Mitchel Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 67% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 22% 9% 8% No opinion 11% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 7 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge John J. Mitchel Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 5 4 1 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 8 6 2 75.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 14 4 4 1 5 50.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 27 14 6 1 6 70.0% Law Enforcement 39 26 7 2 4 78.8% Social Services Caseworker Employee 15 15 100.0% Defendant 223 31 105 75 12 22.8% Plaintiff 37 10 13 9 5 43.5% Juror 6 2 1 3 66.7% Victim 17 5 6 2 4 45.5% Other 11 1 5 4 1 16.7% Sub Total: 348 90 137 92 29 39.6% Total: 375 104 143 93 35 42.1% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 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

• 2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026