Thomas Francis Mulvahill
Trial Court · Boulder · Boulder
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2024 retention cycleTrial Court · Boulder · BoulderCommission vote: 8 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 76.5% yes103,032 yes · 31,561 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2021 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twentieth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a vote of 8-0, finds that Judge Thomas Francis Mulvahill MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Two Commissioners recused themselves based on their prior service on the bench with Judge Mulvahill. Judge Mulvahill has presided over all docket categories in the 20th Judicial District during his 15 years on the bench. The Commission finds Judge Mulvahill to be highly organized, methodical, and no-nonsense. He is introspective about his strengths and weaknesses. He places fairness to the parties in his court over his ego and those of the attorneys. Judge Mulvahill makes a conscious effort to avoid complacency that might otherwise result from a lengthy tenure as a judge. He has a strong work ethic, is efficient, and keeps abreast of new developments in the law. He has developed objective standards and other processes that help him combat bias and ensure fairness. Judge Mulvahill’s peers and others working in the justice system value the consistency of his rulings and his knowledge of the law and judicial procedures. The Commission on Judicial Performance evaluates judges on six standards: legal knowledge, communication, administrative performance, integrity, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession. To evaluate Judge Mulvahill’s performance the Commission observed him in court, reviewed opinions he authored, considered his self-evaluation, held a public meeting to invite comments, and reviewed responses to a survey distributed to all persons who have appeared in his court. The Commission also conducted personal interviews with Judge Mulvahill, the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, and a representative of the Boulder defense bar.
- 2018 retention cycleTrial Court · Boulder · BoulderMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 82.3% yes107,598 yes · 23,158 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2015 Interim Survey Report The 20th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) finds that Judge Thomas Francis Mulvahill MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Mulvahill was appointed to the District Court of the 20th Judicial District on September 16, 2009. Prior to his appointment, he was the managing partner at Chambers Dansky & Mulvahill LLC, a litigation practice in downtown Denver. Before entering private practice, he was a Deputy District Attorney in the Denver District Attorney’s Office and the Chief Prosecutor/Deputy City Attorney in the Lakewood City Attorney’s Office. Judge Mulvahill graduated from the University of Colorado School of Law and St. John’s University. Judge Mulvahill has contributed to the profession by establishing an internship program for law students. He volunteers with the Judges Fighting Hunger pinto bean project. Judge Mulvahill increases public confidence in the justice system by speaking to schools, civic organizations, and bar associations and he was recognized as the 2013 Judicial Officer of the Year. The Commission evaluated Judge Mulvahill based on the criteria set forth in state law (C.R.S. 13-5.5-107): integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Each Commissioner observed Judge Mulvahill in his courtroom. Each Commissioner also reviewed Judge Mulvahill’s self-evaluation, samples of his rulings and orders, a report on his caseload, and anonymous results of qualitative surveys sent to people who appeared in his courtroom during 2017. The Commission met with the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, and the Chair of the Boulder Chapter of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. The Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2018, to gather input from the community. The Commission also interviewed Judge Mulvahill. Due to concerns about the limited number of survey responses, Commissioners gave less weight to the survey results. Of the 13 attorneys who responded to the survey, 77% said Judge Mulvahill meets performance standards. Of the 45 non-attorneys who responded to the survey, 100% said Judge Mulvahill meets performance standards. The Commission found that court observations (which for all Commissioners totaled 44 hours), meeting with various stakeholders, and interviewing Judge Mulvahill provided the best insights. During his current term, Judge Mulvahill has presided over a variety of cases including: domestic relations 40%, civil 25%, criminal law 15%, probate 10%, juvenile 5%, and mental health 5%. Respondents used two pages to list Judge Mulvahill’s strengths, which included great leadership qualities, approachability, fairness, efficiency, and impressive legal expertise. Judge Mulvahill has high expectations for himself and diligently seeks ways to improve. He maintains control over difficult proceedings by staying calm and professional. Judge Mulvahill gives each party a full, equal, and fair proceeding by applying a knowledgeable and evenhanded application of the law. Judge Mulvahill clearly enjoys his work. Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Mulvahill has demonstrated that he meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories.
- 2012 retention cycleTrial Court · Boulder · BoulderMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 79.6% yes98,320 yes · 25,128 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twentieth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a unanimous 10-0 vote that Judge Thomas Francis Mulvahill BE RETAINED. The Commission feels that Judge Mulvahill has performed with excellence at all aspects of his job, and that our community is well-served with him on the bench. We have no significant concerns. Judge Mulvahill completed his undergraduate studies at St. John’s University and graduated from the University of Colorado Law School in 1987. Thereafter he spent ten years with the Denver District Attorney’s Office and ten years doing criminal defense with a private law firm in Denver. He also served part-time on the municipal bench in Lakewood and Brighton to gain judicial experience. He was appointed to the bench by Gov. Bill Ritter in September, 2009. Judge Mulvahill’s major responsibilities have been in criminal (60%) and civil (25%) cases. Judge Mulvahill takes great pride in ensuring a fair trial for all parties that appear before him as well as in maintaining a neutral demeanor both in and out of the courtroom. His written opinions are clear and use a language and logic that both the public and the involved parties can follow and understand. At the public hearing, two lawyers spoke strongly in favor of retaining Judge Mulvahill, and no one spoke in opposition. Each Commission member observed Judge Mulvahill in his courtroom in a wide array of court proceedings, and read several of his written opinions. The Commission as a whole met with Judge Mulvahill for an in-depth interview, and the Commission conducted a public hearing to allow the public to provide their input. We received completed questionnaires from 83 attorneys and 122 non-attorneys. Among the former he scored an overall average grade of 3.46 on a 4.0 scale, and among the latter his score was a near-perfect 3.91. On almost all dimensions measured, among both attorneys and non-attorneys, Judge Mulvahill’s scores were slightly or significantly above those of other district judges in Colorado who are standing for retention this year. Of all attorneys who responded to the surveys about retention, 86% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 6% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those attorneys expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 91% recommended to retain and 9% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 98% recommended to retain, 2% not to retain, and 1% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those non-attorneys expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 99% recommended to retain and 2% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
Surveys & reports
- 2024 cycle
- 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Thomas F. M ulvahill 2021 Ju dicial Performance Survey Report District C ourt Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 8 Case Management . . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 9 Communications. .10 Demeanor . .11 Diligence . .12 Fairness . .14 Survey of Appellate Judges . .15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .16 Methodology and How to Read Results . .16 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .19 Methodology and How to Read Results . .19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Mulvahill, 51 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 51 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 82% 80% 76% 75% 76% 60% 40% 25% 24% 18% 20% 13% 6% 5% 0% Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Mulvahill Mulvahill Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 76% 82% 75% 76% standards No, does not meet 24% 13% 25% 18% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 6% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.6 Case Management 3.4 3.0 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.3 Communications 3.5 3.2 Diligence 3.3 2.9 Demeanor 3.4 2.8 Fairness 3.4 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Judge All District Mulvahill Judges Case Management 3.6 3.4 Application and 3.0 3.3 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.3 3.5 Diligence 3.2 3.3 Demeanor 2.9 3.4 Fairness 2.8 3.4 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Number Percent with Response with Group Responses Sufficient Rate Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 55 29% 71% 39 Non-Attorneys 18 - - 12 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Mulvahill received 2 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 6 ## Page 7 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 7 ## Page 8 Detailed R eport Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mulvahill Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mulvahill Attorneys 3.6 Judge Mulvahill Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Mulvahill Mulvahill Mulvahill Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.8 3.4 4 3.2 38 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 43 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.7 3.3 3.8 3.5 35 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 42 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mulvahill Overall 3 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Mulvahill Attorneys 3 Judge Mulvahill Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Mulvahill Mulvahill Mulvahill Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 46 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 34 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 33 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 2.6 3.3 2.6 N/A 34 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3 3.2 3 N/A 33 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 12 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 12 pressure 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mulvahill Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Mulvahill Attorneys 3.4 Judge Mulvahill Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Mulvahill Mulvahill Mulvahill Non- Overall Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.1 44 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 32 reasoned Using language that everyone can 3 3.6 N/A 3.0 11 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.1 3.6 N/A 3.1 11 being said 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mulvahill Score 2.9 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mulvahill Attorneys 2.9 Judge Mulvahill Non-Attorneys 2.8 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Mulvahill Mulvahill Non- Mulvahill Score Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.1 3.5 3.2 2.8 45 Treating participants with respect 2.8 3.5 2.7 2.9 45 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 2.9 3.4 2.9 2.9 45 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.7 3.4 N/A 2.7 11 appear before him/her 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Mulvahill Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Mulvahill Attorneys 3.3 Judge Mulvahill Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Mulvahill Mulvahill Non- Mulvahill Score Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3 3.2 3 N/A 33 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 29 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 32 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.6 N/A 3.0 11 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3 3.5 N/A 3.0 11 Maintaining appropriate control 3.2 3.4 N/A 3.2 11 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.9 3.3 N/A 2.9 8 cases 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 12 ## Page 13 Judge Judge Judge District Judges Number of Mulvahill Mulvahill Non- Mulvahill Score Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Managing court proceedings so 3 3.4 N/A 3.0 11 that there is little wasted time 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 13 ## Page 14 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Mulvahill Score 2.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Mulvahill Attorneys Judge Mulvahill Non-Attorneys 2.8 Judge Mulvahill D istrict Judges J udge Mulvahill J udge Mulvahill Number of Score Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 2.7 3.4 N/A 2.7 11 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in 2.8 3.4 N/A 2.8 11 the case without bias Treating fairly people who 2.9 3.4 N/A 2.9 9 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.0 3.5 N/A 3.0 10 case 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 14 ## Page 15 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Mulvahill 9 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Mulvahill enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Mulvahill Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Mulvahill District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.3 3.6 9 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 15 ## Page 16 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2021 administration, a total of 62,982 survey invitations were sent to 10,316 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2021. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 6.1 judges. In total 9,605 surveys were completed with an additional 7,234 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 15% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 27%. Non-attorneys The 2021 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 34,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 4,018 surveys were completed with an additional 1,590 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2021 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on May 28th, 2020. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2020 on May 28th, 2020. Reminders were sent on June 15th and July 8th, 2020. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2020 with email invitations sent on August 6th, 2020 and reminders was sent on August 25th, 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2020 on November 9th, 2020. Reminders sent on November 19th and December 16th, 2 020. The final data collection took place in January 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020 on January 21st, 2021. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2 021. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2020 and ran through the response deadline of February 15th, 2021. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email, but using a different process. To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 16 ## Page 17 Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 15th, 2021. During this period 61 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 15thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2021 were held over for the 2022 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 34,758 4,018 12% Court Staff Email Invite 3,141 1,779 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 61 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 597 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2020 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on interim. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 17 ## Page 18 e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 9 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Mulvahill to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for interim. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2021. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses N ot Applicable Rate Attorney 191 55 0 39 71% Staff 4 0 4 - Others 86 10 0 8 - Total Non-Attorneys 86 14 - 12 - Total Respondents - 69 - 51 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2021 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 20 - 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Th omas F. Mulvahill 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Survey of Appellate Judges. . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - District Judge Survey by Appellate Judges. . 20 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Mulvahill, 58 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 58 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 447 28 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 28 Non-attorney email Invite 773 30 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 0 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 30 Total N/A 58 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Mulvahill Overall Judge Mulvahill Number of Responses Overall Overall Grade 3.2 58 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 77% 77% 20 20 standards No, does not meet performance 15% 23% 4 6 standards No opinion 8% 0% 2 0 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Mulvahill Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 Communications 3.2 Diligence 3.4 Demeanor 3.0 Fairness 3.0 Judge Mulvahill Score Judge Number of Mulvahill Responses Score Case Management 3.4 58 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.1 55 Communications 3.2 57 Diligence 3.4 52 Demeanor 3.0 53 Fairness 3.0 51 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 3.4 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.4 3.7 3.2 52 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.4 3.5 3.3 55 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 3.4 3.6 3.2 47 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.3 3.2 3.3 55 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.5 3.3 3.7 45 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.1 Non-Attorneys 3.1 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.2 3.3 3.1 52 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.0 3.0 N/A 26 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.2 3.2 N/A 22 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 3.3 3.3 N/A 26 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.1 3.1 N/A 25 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.0 3.0 N/A 26 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 3.1 N/A 3.1 29 Willing to make decisions without regard to 3.0 N/A 3.0 24 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.2 Attorneys 3.1 Non-Attorneys 3.2 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.2 3.3 3.1 54 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 3.2 3.2 N/A 25 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.0 3.0 N/A 25 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.1 3.1 N/A 26 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.4 N/A 3.4 29 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.4 N/A 3.4 28 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 3.0 N/A 3.0 27 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.0 Attorneys 2.9 Non-Attorneys 3.1 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.1 3.0 3.1 52 Treats participants with respect. 2.9 2.7 3.1 53 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 2.8 2.8 N/A 24 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 3.2 3.2 N/A 25 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.1 3.1 N/A 25 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 2.9 N/A 2.9 27 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.4 Attorneys 3.3 Non-Attorneys 3.5 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.2 3.2 N/A 25 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3.4 3.4 N/A 23 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.4 3.4 N/A 25 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.7 N/A 3.7 25 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.5 N/A 3.5 26 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.6 N/A 3.6 24 Is prepared for cases 3.5 N/A 3.5 25 Manages court proceedings so there is little 3.6 N/A 3.6 26 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.0 Attorneys 2.9 Non-Attorneys 3.0 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 3.0 N/A 3.0 25 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 3.0 N/A 3.0 26 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 3.0 N/A 3.0 23 Gives each side enough time to present their 3.1 N/A 3.1 25 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 3.0 3.0 N/A 25 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 3.0 3.0 N/A 25 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 2.5 2.5 N/A 25 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.0 3.0 N/A 25 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Mulvahill 10 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Mulvahill enough to evaluate their performance. 4.0 3.4 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Mulvahill Overall Judge Mulvahill Overall Number of Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.4 10 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Mulvahill, 58 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 58 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 14 ## Page 15 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 15 ## Page 16 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 16 ## Page 17 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 17 ## Page 18 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 18 ## Page 19 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Di strict Judge Survey by Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates Invitations were sent via email to all 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 10 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Mulvahill to evaluate their performance. B. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco® survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16, 2024. Reminders were sent on January 22 and January 29, 2024. C. Questions Due to the considerable number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A through F, with A being Excellent and F being Fail. To reduce bias in the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order. D. Analysis and Reporting For analysis, letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and F = 0. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average is reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question; that is, the percentage of respondents who assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. E. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 20
- 2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill Boulder Justice Center P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Judge Mulvahill: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fifth 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. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill received an overall combined average grade of 3.63 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.41, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.85, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Mulvahill Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.63 3.41 3.85 Sample Size -- 142 159 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Mulvahill’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Mulvahill Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 3.92 3.85 9 3.98 13 2010 3.63 3.34 46 3.91 74 2011 3.68 3.47 28 3.88 35 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.50 3.34 59 3.66 37 Overall 3.63 3.41 142 3.85 159 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.26. Judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non- attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Mulvahill’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Mulvahill Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.94 72 45% 3.78 87 55% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill (Sample Size 142) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Sample Size = 142 A B C D Fail DK/NA Mulvahill Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 58% 15% 3% 2% 0% 22% 3.65 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 72% 20% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 16% 4% 2% 0% 26% 3.60 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 21% 8% 1% 1% 6% 3.53 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.60 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 58% 22% 12% 3% 1% 4% 3.38 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 55% 18% 16% 3% 4% 4% 3.24 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 34% 14% 11% 6% 5% 30% 2.96 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 33% 31% 16% 2% 5% 14% 2.98 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 71% 20% 4% 1% 1% 4% 3.65 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 53% 21% 5% 3% 3% 15% 3.39 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.52 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 19% 5% 1% 2% 1% 3.58 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 62% 22% 7% 3% 4% 1% 3.37 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 11% 4% 4% 1% 3.26 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 59% 18% 10% 1% 4% 8% 3.36 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.39 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.28 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 61% 21% 7% 3% 1% 7% 3.47 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 61% 14% 4% 2% 1% 17% 3.61 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.45 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.41 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Mulvahill Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 17% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 23% Completely neutral 48% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 3% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 2% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 64% 57% Recommend retain 23% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 9% Recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 87% 79% Neither 5% 9% Total Not Retain 7% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.41 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.60 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.65 case after trial. 3.35 3.63 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 3.60 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.53 3.24 3.14 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.38 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 3.24 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 2.96 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2.98 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.52 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.65 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.39 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.39 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.58 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 3.37 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.26 neutral manner. 3.26 3.36 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.45 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.28 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.47 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.61 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 17% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 29% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 48% Completely Neutral 49% 3% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 2% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Mulvahill be retained or not retained in office? 64% Strongly recommend retain 57% 23% Recommend retain 22% 5% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Mulvahill Judges* Total Retain 87% 79% 2% Neither 5% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 7% 12% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill (Sample Size 159) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Sample Size = 159 A B C D Fail DK/NA Mulvahill Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 89% 8% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3.82 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 91% 5% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3.84 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 90% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.85 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 89% 8% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3.83 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.84 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 89% 7% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.86 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 90% 6% 0% 1% 1% 3% 3.90 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 61% 2% 0% 0% 1% 36% 3.89 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 86% 6% 0% 0% 1% 7% 3.88 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.88 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 89% 8% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.87 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 91% 7% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.87 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 95% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3.92 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.89 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 87% 9% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.83 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 89% 8% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.84 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 80% 7% 3% 0% 1% 9% 3.83 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 89% 6% 1% 0% 1% 3% 3.87 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 87% 10% 2% 1% 1% 0% 3.82 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.84 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 77% 9% 1% 2% 1% 10% 3.77 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 73% 5% 1% 1% 1% 19% 3.83 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 83% 6% 1% 2% 1% 8% 3.81 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.80 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.85 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Mulvahill Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 9% Competely neutral 90% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.23 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% 10% Competely neutral 81% 78% Lenient sentencing total 7% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.21 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% 74% Recommend retain 8% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% 5% Recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 5% Total Retain 83% 87% Neither 8% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.85 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.84 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.82 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.84 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.85 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.83 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.88 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.86 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.90 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.89 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.88 their case. 3.64 3.89 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.87 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.87 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.92 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.84 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.83 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.83 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.87 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.82 little wasted time. 3.54 3.80 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.77 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.83 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.81 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.23 Thomas F. Mulvahill 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.21 Thomas F. Mulvahill 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Mulvahill be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 74% 8% Recommend retain 13% 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 5% Judge Mulvahill Judges* 3% Total Retain 83% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 8% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non- attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Mulvahill is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding District Judges surveys for all district judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 21 4 1 0 16 80.0% Defense Attorneys 70 23 7 0 40 63.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 90 26 16 0 48 64.9% Other Attorneys Civil 81 42 1 0 38 47.5% Total Attorneys 262 95 25 0 142 59.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 75 49 20 0 6 10.9% Civil Litigant 233 142 42 8 41 21.5% Witness 15 9 3 0 3 25.0% Other 8 5 0 1 2 25.0% Jurors 128 51 5 0 72 58.5% Employees, including Interpreters 23 4 3 0 16 80.0% Probation Officers 36 12 5 0 19 61.3% Total Non-attorneys 518 272 78 9 159 36.1% Grand Total: 780 367 103 9 301 44.5% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3259 1426 748 0 1085 43.2% Defense Attorneys 3585 1696 482 0 1407 45.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 25 14 2 0 9 39.1% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2791 1004 327 0 1460 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4006 1545 780 0 1681 52.1% GAL 11 0 0 0 11 100.0% Total Attorneys 13677 5685 2339 0 5653 49.9% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16384 7182 8195 112 895 10.9% Civil Litigant 8222 4671 2146 126 1279 21.1% Witness 196 90 49 3 54 36.7% Other 231 105 45 14 67 36.0% Jurors 10278 4073 804 154 5247 55.4% Employees, including Interpreters 567 108 90 10 359 75.3% Probation Officers 432 118 78 1 235 66.4% Total Non-attorneys 46435 21813 14253 909 9460 29.4% Grand Total: 60112 27498 16592 909 15113 34.7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9460 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score—judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend95%respondent count not on recordNon-attorneys recommend100%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill, 90 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 58 agreed they had worked with Judge Mulvahill enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 58 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.98 3.99 4.00 4 3.72 2.90 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.72 2.90 3.98 3.99 4.00 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 80% 77% 60% 40% 23% 20% 5% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 95% 77% 100% 100% 100% standards No, does not meet performance 5% 23% 0% 0% 0% standards No opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.56 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.77 3.98 4.00 4.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.69 4.00 4.00 4.00 Diligence 2.95 3.99 3.99 4.00 Demeanor 2.54 3.95 3.98 4.00 Fairness N/A 3.98 4.00 4.00 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 63 0 18 29% 28% Total Non- 296 10 72 25% 38% Attorneys Staff 181 0 48 27% 54% Jurors 51 1 22 44% 0% Other Non- 64 9 2 4% 50% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Mulvahill, 18 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 13 agreed they had worked with Judge Mulvahill enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 13 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Mulvahill on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.56 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.75 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.54 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.58 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3.64 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Thomas F. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Mulvahill Promptly issuing a decision on the 10 1 1 -- -- 1 13 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 9 2 2 -- -- -- 13 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 7 5 -- -- -- 1 13 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 8 2 1 -- -- 1 12 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Mulvahill on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 2.77 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.15 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 2.69 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 2.2 are similar 3.20 2.62 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 2.77 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 8 1 2 2 -- -- 13 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 7 1 2 -- 3 -- 13 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 2 -- 1 1 1 -- 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 7 1 1 1 3 -- 13 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 7 1 2 1 2 -- 13 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Mulvahill on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 2.69 Communications Overall Average 3.44 2.77 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 2.62 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 6 2 2 2 1 -- 13 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 5 2 3 2 1 -- 13 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Mulvahill on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 2.54 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 2.69 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 2.38 Treating participants with respect 3.44 2.54 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 6 1 3 2 1 -- 13 dignity Treating participants with respect 4 3 1 4 1 -- 13 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 6 1 2 2 2 -- 13 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Mulvahill on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 2.95 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 2.54 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.18 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 7 -- 1 3 2 -- 13 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 8 1 2 -- 2 -- 13 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 7 1 2 -- 1 2 13 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Mulvahill meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Yes, meets performance 77% standards No, does not meet 23% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Mulvahill, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Mulvahill enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 8 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 14 ## Page 17 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.63 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Thomas F. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Mulvahill Overall performance as a 5 3 -- -- -- 7 15 judge *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill, 72 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 45 agreed they had worked with Judge Mulvahill enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 45 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 16 ## Page 19 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 17 ## Page 20 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.95 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.98 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.93 Treating participants with respect 3.59 4 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.96 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 45 1 -- -- -- -- 46 Treating participants with respect 44 1 1 -- -- -- 46 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 45 -- -- -- -- 1 46 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 43 2 -- -- -- 1 46 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 19 ## Page 22 Fairness 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.98 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.96 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 3.98 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 4 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.98 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 43 2 -- -- -- 1 46 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 44 1 -- -- -- 1 46 case without bias Treating fairly people who 35 -- -- -- -- 11 46 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 44 1 -- -- -- 1 46 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 20 ## Page 23 Communications 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 4 Communications Overall Average 3.69 4 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 4 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 4 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 45 -- -- -- -- -- 45 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 45 -- -- -- -- -- 45 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 45 -- -- -- -- -- 45 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 21 ## Page 24 Diligence 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.99 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.98 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 4 for cases 3.61 4 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 4 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.98 wasted time 3.51 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 44 1 -- -- -- -- 45 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 45 -- -- -- -- -- 45 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 45 -- -- -- -- -- 45 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 43 -- -- -- -- 2 45 Managing court proceedings so that there is 44 1 -- -- -- -- 45 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law 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 mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.98 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.93 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 4 outside pressure 3.56 4 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Mulvahill All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 39 3 -- -- -- 3 45 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 38 -- -- -- -- 7 45 pressure Being able to identify and 41 -- -- -- -- 4 45 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Mulvahill meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Yes, meets performance 100% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 24
- 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 TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiillll 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill Boulder Justice Center P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Judge Mulvahill: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Thomas F. Mulvahill May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, district judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.40, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.92, Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.66. Judge Mulvahill Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.66 3.40 3.92 Sample Size - 55 87 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Mulvahill from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Mulvahill’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Mulvahill Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 2007 2008 2009 3.92 3.85 9 3.98 13 2010 3.63 3.34 46 3.91 74 Overall 3.66 3.40 55 3.92 87 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 66%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for district judges was 1 There were no surveys conducted based on cases that closed in 2006. See methodology section for more details. 1 ## Page 5 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Mulvahill’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2005 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges. Judge Mulvahill Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All District Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2005 % % 3.84 3.25 2007 % % 3.86 3.31 2008 % % 3.87 3.30 2009 3.97 4 31% 3.98 9 69% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.93 57 77% 3.84 17 23% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.93 61 70% 3.89 26 30% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Mulvahill’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiil ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Sample Size = 55 A B C D Fail DK/NA Mulvahill Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 58% 13% 2% 0% 0% 27% 3.78 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 71% 20% 5% 0% 0% 4% 3.68 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 42% 13% 0% 2% 0% 44% 3.68 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 20% 2% 0% 0% 11% 3.73 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.72 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 15% 11% 4% 0% 9% 3.48 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 62% 5% 18% 2% 4% 9% 3.32 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 5% 4% 5% 4% 42% 3.25 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0% 18% 45% 9% 18% 9% 1.70 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.94 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 71% 16% 5% 0% 0% 7% 3.71 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 18% 4% 2% 2% 25% 3.49 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.60 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.59 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 16% 5% 5% 4% 2% 3.41 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 11% 15% 7% 4% 2% 3.22 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 11% 11% 0% 5% 15% 3.36 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.40 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 58% 9% 11% 7% 4% 11% 3.24 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 60% 18% 5% 4% 0% 13% 3.54 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 58% 9% 4% 2% 0% 27% 3.70 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.40 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Mulvahill Judges Sample Size = 55 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 73% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 26% Completely neutral 9% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 78% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 6% Total Retain 86% 88% Total Not Retain 14% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 6% Total Retain 78% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 4% Total Not Retain 13% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.40 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.72 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.78 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.68 proceedings. 3.41 3.68 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.73 3.26 2.94 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.48 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.32 3.14 3.25 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 1.70 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.60 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.71 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.49 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.40 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.59 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.22 in a neutral manner. 3.29 3.36 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.49 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.24 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.54 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.70 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 73% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 18% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 9% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Mulvahill be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 78% Strongly recommend retain 72% 8% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Judge Mulvahill Judges 4% Total Retain 86% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 14% 12% 6% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 71% Strongly recommend retain 69% 7% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist 9% Judge Mulvahill Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 78% 84% Undecided or DK 9% 4% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 13% 12% 6% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiil ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 8877)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Sample Size = 87 A B C D Fail DK/NA Mulvahill Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 92% 6% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3.91 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 95% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3.93 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 94% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.94 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 90% 8% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3.92 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.93 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 90% 8% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3.92 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 92% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3.95 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 4.00 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 85% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12% 3.96 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.96 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 90% 9% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3.87 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 91% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3.90 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 98% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3.95 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.91 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 92% 7% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3.93 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 93% 3% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.91 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 84% 6% 2% 0% 0% 8% 3.89 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 93% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 3.96 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 91% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3.89 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.92 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 78% 10% 0% 0% 1% 10% 3.83 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 76% 2% 0% 1% 0% 21% 3.93 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 84% 5% 0% 1% 0% 10% 3.91 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.89 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.92 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Mulvahill Judges Sample Size = 87 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 3% 8% Competely neutral 97% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.09 0.07 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 7% 8% Competely neutral 93% 82% Lenient sentencing total 0% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.07 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 95% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 3% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 4% Total Retain 98% 95% Total Not Retain 1% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 95% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 3% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 4% Total Retain 98% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.92 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.93 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.91 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.93 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.94 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.92 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.96 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.92 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.95 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 4.00 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.96 or her case. 3.69 3.91 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.87 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.90 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.95 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.92 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.93 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.91 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.89 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.96 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.89 little wasted time. 3.58 3.89 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.83 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.93 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.91 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.09 Thomas F. Mulvahill 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.07 Thomas F. Mulvahill 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Mulvahill be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 95% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Mulvahill Judges Total Retain 98% 95% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 1% 6% 2% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 95% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 0% All Dist Undecided 5% Judge Mulvahill Judges Total Retain 98% 90% 1% Undecided 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 21 ## Page 25 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Mulvahill is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 17 6 0 0 11 64.7% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 14 5 0 0 9 64.3% Other Attorneys Civil 76 41 0 0 35 46.1% Total Attorneys 107 52 0 0 55 51.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 8 3 4 0 1 25.0% Civil Litigant 77 41 16 3 17 27.9% Witness 14 8 3 0 3 27.3% Other 6 3 0 1 2 33.3% Jurors 104 40 3 0 61 60.4% Employees 5 2 0 0 3 60.0% Total Non-attorneys 214 97 26 4 87 46.3% Grand Total: 321 149 26 4 142 48.1% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 5963 3735 108 3 2117 36.2% Defense Attorneys 9005 5407 125 0 3473 39.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 310 260 2 1 47 15.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9795 4329 410 17 5039 53.7% Other Attorneys Civil 6107 3564 63 4 2476 41.0% GAL 101 43 5 0 53 55.2% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 193 60 22 0 111 64.9% Total Attorneys 31474 17398 735 25 13316 43.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 149 85 40 3 21 19.3% Witness 13212 6730 4190 587 1705 18.9% Other 5595 3441 1430 55 667 16.0% Law Enforcement 13854 7651 3233 295 2674 25.2% Defendant 40047 19046 17527 241 3226 14.3% Civil Litigant 23266 13519 5107 291 4337 23.9% Witness 618 306 139 15 158 33.0% Other 679 317 150 18 194 36.7% Non-Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 2763 1447 1003 4 309 17.6% Jurors 48708 18523 2771 544 26770 58.3% Employees 905 283 121 66 435 55.5% Total Non-attorneys 149796 71348 35711 2119 40496 35.5% Grand Total: 181270 88746 36446 2144 53812 37.2% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 13316 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.40 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 51% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.26 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 5% 2% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 47% 24% 11% 6% 4% 8% 3.14 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 20% 10% 6% 4% 21% 3.02 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 23% 9% 4% 3% 26% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 24% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 12% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 7% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 20% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.33 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 19% 7% 3% 2% 14% 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 13316 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 40496 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 82% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.72 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.65 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.66 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.67 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.64 4d.Being prepared for cases. 78% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.71 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 1% 3% 18% 3.64 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 40496 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.07 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.04 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiillll 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill Boulder Justice Center P.O. Box 4249 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Judge Mulvahill: 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 in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) non- attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Thomas F. Mulvahill 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 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill received an overall combined average grade of 3.69 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.46, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.91, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Mulvahill Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.69 3.46 3.91 Sample Size - 83 122 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Mulvahill’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Mulvahill Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 3.92 3.85 9 3.98 13 2010 3.63 3.34 46 3.91 74 2011 3.68 3.47 28 3.88 35 Overall 3.69 3.46 83 3.91 122 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.88, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Mulvahill’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Mulvahill Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Mulvahill Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.93 61 50% 3.88 61 50% 3.88 3.28 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiil ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 8833)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Sample Size = 83 A B C D Fail DK/NA Mulvahill Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 54% 14% 1% 0% 0% 30% 3.76 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 70% 24% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3.68 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 17% 1% 1% 0% 36% 3.64 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 20% 7% 0% 0% 10% 3.61 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.67 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 19% 16% 2% 0% 6% 3.38 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 57% 14% 19% 1% 2% 6% 3.29 3.19 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 37% 10% 6% 7% 2% 37% 3.15 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 26% 32% 18% 3% 5% 16% 2.84 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 73% 17% 5% 0% 0% 5% 3.72 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 52% 22% 2% 1% 1% 22% 3.55 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.64 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3.62 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 2% 1% 3.45 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 16% 13% 6% 2% 1% 3.29 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 57% 17% 11% 0% 4% 12% 3.40 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.44 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 20% 11% 6% 2% 7% 3.25 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 58% 23% 8% 2% 0% 8% 3.49 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 59% 17% 2% 1% 0% 20% 3.68 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.47 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.46 3.29 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 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Mulvahill Retention Sample Size = 83 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 21% 24% Completely neutral 53% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 3% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 3% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 81% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 91% 87% Total Not Retain 9% 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 76% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 86% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.46 Overall Average Grade 3.29 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.67 3.29 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.76 case after trial. 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.68 proceedings. 3.40 3.64 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.61 3.22 3.17 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.38 relevant facts. 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.29 3.19 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 2.84 when circumstances are similar. 3.15 3.64 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.72 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.55 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.33 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Retention Judges Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.44 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.62 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.50 3.45 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.29 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.40 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.47 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.25 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.49 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.68 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 21% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 21% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 53% Completely Neutral 49% 3% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 3% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Mulvahill be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain 71% 10% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Retention Judge Mulvahill Judges 3% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 91% 87% 6% Total Not Retain 9% 12% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain 67% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Including Und/DK Respondents 6% Undecided or DK All Dist 5% Retention Judge Mulvahill Judges 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 86% 83% 6% Undecided or DK 6% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 12% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiil ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2233)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Sample Size = 23 All District No Thomas F. Retention Evaluations of Judge Mulvahill = 9 A B C D Fail Grade Mulvahill Judges Judge Mulvahill in terms of overall performance as a judge. 30% 9% 0% 0% 0% 61% 3.78 3.68 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. While 23 out of 28 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TThhoommaass FF.. MMuullvvaahhiil ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Sample Size = 122 A B C D Fail DK/NA Mulvahill Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 93% 5% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3.89 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 94% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3.91 3.69 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 93% 6% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.93 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 90% 7% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3.89 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.91 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 91% 7% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3.90 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 92% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3.95 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 62% 1% 0% 0% 0% 38% 3.99 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 86% 5% 0% 0% 1% 8% 3.91 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.94 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 90% 8% 0% 1% 0% 1% 3.89 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 91% 7% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.91 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 98% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3.96 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.92 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 88% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.87 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 93% 4% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.90 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 82% 6% 2% 0% 0% 10% 3.88 3.62 4d. Being prepared for cases. 93% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3.96 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 89% 8% 2% 1% 0% 0% 3.86 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.89 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 79% 10% 0% 1% 1% 9% 3.83 3.59 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 78% 3% 0% 1% 0% 18% 3.93 3.62 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 87% 4% 0% 1% 1% 7% 3.89 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.88 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.91 3.64 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 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Thomas F. All District Mulvahill Retention Sample Size = 122 Judges 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 9% Competely neutral 91% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.18 0.05 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 11% 10% Competely neutral 83% 80% Lenient sentencing total 7% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.11 0.04 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 96% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 3% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 4% Total Retain 99% 93% Total Not Retain 2% 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 95% 83% Somewhat recommend retain 3% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 1% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 4% Total Retain 98% 89% Undecided/Don't Know 1% 5% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.91 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.91 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.65 3.89 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.91 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.93 manner. 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.89 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.59 3.94 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.90 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.95 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.99 themselves. 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.91 or her case. 3.67 3.92 Q3. Overall Communications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.89 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.91 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.96 can hear what's being said. 3.72 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Retention Judges Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.89 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.62 3.87 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.90 proceedings. 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.88 3.62 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.96 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.86 little wasted time. 3.56 3.88 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.83 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.59 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.93 possible outside pressure. 3.62 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.89 relevant facts. 3.60 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.18 Thomas F. Mulvahill 0.05 All District Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.11 Thomas F. Mulvahill 0.04 All District Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Retention Judges 15 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Mulvahill be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 96% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 6% All Dist Retention 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Mulvahill Judges 2% Total Retain 99% 93% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 95% Strongly recommend retain in office 83% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 1% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 5% All Dist Retention 2% Judge Mulvahill Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 98% 89% 2% Undecided 1% 5% 0% Total Not Retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Thomas F. Mulvahill All District Retention Judges 16 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial 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, 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 18 ## Page 22 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. 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 District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The 19 ## Page 23 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 Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-eight appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. 20 ## Page 24 The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, though not all 23 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process: Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. As stated above, court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two 21 ## Page 25 to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. 22 ## Page 26 The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Mulvahill is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all district judges. 23 ## Page 27 Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 15 2 0 0 13 86.7% Defense Attorneys 41 12 4 0 25 67.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 15 5 0 0 10 66.7% Other Attorneys Civil 76 41 0 0 35 46.1% Total Attorneys 147 60 4 0 83 58.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 40 27 9 0 4 12.9% Civil Litigant 79 43 16 3 17 27.0% Witness 15 9 3 0 3 25.0% Other 6 3 0 1 2 33.3% Jurors 104 40 3 0 61 60.4% Employees, including Interpreters 23 4 3 0 16 80.0% Probation Officers 36 12 5 0 19 61.3% Total Non-attorneys 303 138 39 4 122 46.2% Grand Total: 450 198 43 4 205 50.4% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2526 1265 381 0 880 41.0% Defense Attorneys 3297 1732 263 0 1302 42.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 22 13 0 0 9 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2327 1053 103 1 1170 52.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2328 1099 246 0 983 47.2% GAL 11 1 0 0 10 90.9% Total Attorneys 10511 5163 993 1 4354 45.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 52 36 10 0 6 14.3% Witness 7389 3621 2563 353 852 17.7% Other 1084 619 301 15 149 19.0% Law Enforcement 3846 2060 925 142 719 24.6% Defendant 14840 6599 7050 107 1084 13.9% Civil Litigant 6881 3945 1545 101 1290 24.2% Witness 123 58 25 1 39 39.8% Other 126 51 30 10 35 36.5% Jurors 13266 4866 907 173 7320 59.2% Employees, including Interpreters 704 135 95 13 461 75.7% Probation Officers 572 160 116 2 294 64.5% Total Non-attorneys 48883 22150 13567 917 12249 34.7% Grand Total: 59394 27313 14560 918 16603 37.0% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4354 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 48% 20% 8% 4% 2% 18% 3.32 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 25% 11% 5% 3% 10% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 28% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 26% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.32 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 12% 6% 3% 3% 3.19 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 20% 11% 7% 5% 22% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 27% 11% 5% 3% 13% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 24% 9% 3% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 20% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 9% 6% 4% 2% 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 3% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 4% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 19% 6% 4% 2% 13% 3.41 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 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 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4354 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 12249 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 8% 2% 1% 2% 34% 3.63 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 12% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 68% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.53 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 15% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.62 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.69 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.59 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.62 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 12% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 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 ## Page 33 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 12249 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.04 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 83% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 89% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 34 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Retention Judges DK/ Sample Size = 23 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. 38% 15% 1% 0% 0% 46% 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 ## Page 35 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 36 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 37 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 38 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 39 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 40 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 8th Judicial District No Grade Christopher J. Munch .... A B C D F Devin R. Odell ............... A B C D F Christie B. Phillips ......... A B C D F John David Williams...... A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 9th Judicial District Ann Frick ....................... A B C D F James B. Boyd .............. A B C D F Shelley I. Gilman ........... A B C D F Daniel B. Petre .............. A B C D F Christina M. Habas ........ A B C D F 10th Judicial District Morris B. Hoffman ......... A B C D F David W. Crockenberg .. A B C D F Kenneth M. Laff ............. A B C D F Deborah R. Eyler .......... A B C D F Catherine A. Lemon ...... A B C D F 11th Judicial District R. Michael Mullins ......... A B C D F Charles M. Barton ......... A B C D F Karen Ashby .................. A B C D F Julie G. Marshall ........... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Claude W. Appel ........... A B C D F Pattie P. Swift ................ A B C D F 4th Judicial District 13th Judicial District Theresa M. Cisneros ..... A B C D F Michael K. Singer .......... A B C D F Robert L. Lowrey ........... A B C D F Charles M. Hobbs ......... A B C D F Timothy J. Schutz .......... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Larry E. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Michael A. O’Hara, III .... A B C D F Scott Sells ..................... A B C D F 15th Judicial District David L. Shakes ............ A B C D F P. Douglas Tallman....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 41 16th Judicial District No Grade M. Jon Kolomitz ............. A B C D F 17th Judicial District Chris Melonakis ............. A B C D F Edward C. Moss ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Marilyn Antrim ............... A B C D F Christopher C. Cross ..... A B C D F J. Mark Hannen ............. A B C D F Kurt A. Horton................ A B C D F Michael Spear ............... A B C D F 19th Judicial District James F. Hartmann, Jr. . A B C D F Elizabeth Strobel ........... A B C D F Todd L. Taylor ............... A B C D F Dinsmore Tuttle ............. A B C D F 20th Judicial District Dolores D. Mallard ........ A B C D F Thomas F. Mulvahill ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District Todd J. Plewe................ A B C D F Please use the following pages or attach a sheet for comments you would like to make about any of these district judges. 2 ## Page 42 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 43 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4
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
- 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026