Patrick T. Murphy

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2016 retention cycle
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Commission vote: 9 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 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 Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 9-0 that Chief Judge Patrick T. Murphy BE RETAINED. Judge Murphy was appointed to the District Court in 2008, and was appointed as the Chief Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial District in 2014. Judge Murphy received his bachelor's degree in 1972 and his law degree in 1975, both from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Murphy served as both a state and federal prosecutor before entering into private practice in 1986. In his private practice, Judge Murphy litigated both civil and criminal cases in federal and state courts. In his role as Chief Judge, Judge Murphy manages the staff and operations of the judicial district. He also works closely with the communities of Adams and Broomfield Counties and serves on many state-wide committees that strive to improve the judicial system in Colorado. Judge Murphy was awarded the Justice Department Distinguished Service Award in 1985 and the Heart of Broomfield Award for Community Service in 2014. The evaluation methods used by the Commission included a review of legal opinions authored by Judge Murphy, a personal interview by the Commission, in-court observations by Commission members, and a review of Judge Murphy’s Self Evaluation. Surveys distributed to both attorneys and non-attorneys, associated with cases brought before the judge, provided statistics that were integral in assessing Judge Murphy’s effectiveness. Among the survey questions was “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey, 84% recommended retention, 8% recommended non-retention, and 8% had no recommendation. 93% of responding non-attorneys recommended retention, 6% recommended non-retention and 2% had no recommendation. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding). As the Chief Judge, Judge Murphy has a diverse docket including: 5% Mental Health cases, 60% Probate cases, 30% Criminal cases, and 5% Water cases. Judge Murphy received ratings from non-attorneys that were higher than average for all district judges standing for retention and average ratings from attorneys. In his evaluations, Judge Murphy was consistently described as being "fair," "compassionate," and "understanding" in his handling of very difficult and sensitive cases. Judge Murphy's written decisions are well-written and well-reasoned. During his interview, Judge Murphy spoke of his commitment to his role as Chief Judge and his management responsibilities. He was described by other judges as being a dedicated and effective Chief Judge. The Commission believes that Judge Murphy's strengths as a judge and a leader are assets to the Seventeenth Judicial District. Based on its review of post-case surveys, courtroom observations, several of Judge Murphy’s written decisions, and its interview of Judge Murphy, the Commission unanimously recommends that Judge Patrick T. Murphy BE RETAINED.
2010 retention cycle
Trial Court · Adams · Adams
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 62.7% yes
67,352 yes · 40,064 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Patrick T. Murphy BE RETAINED. Prior to his appointment, Judge Murphy was in private practice with Purvis, Gray and Murphy, a position he has held since 2004. Prior to starting this firm, he was in private practice from 1986 to 2003. From 1981 to 1986 he was an Assistant United States Attorney. He also has served in the Weld County and Boulder County District Attorney Offices. He received his bachelor's degree in 1972 and his law degree in 1975, both from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Judge Murphy’s docket is 100% juvenile, but he has helped out in the Civil Division. Judge Murphy considers community service to be an important part of being a judge. He serves on the Policy Board on the Adams County Youth Initiative as the court representative. The Board consists of leaders from law enforcement, education, human services, mental health and other agencies to coordinate services for juveniles. Judge Murphy has been a leader in the pilot project ACT (Alternative Court Track), which is designed as a juvenile mental health court. Judge Murphy worked with the art teacher at the juvenile detention center to develop an art program as a mode of therapy for the juveniles while they are detained. The selected art is displayed in the courtroom to encourage the juveniles to use the art while in detention to help them improve their self image and understand problems. Judge Murphy volunteers at The Lookout Mountain School for Boys, which is the most secure facility for juveniles in the Department of Youth Corrections. He helps teach a mock trial team competition. The Commission reviewed written survey evaluations of Judge Murphy from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written comments. The Commission reviewed Judge Murphy’s written self-evaluation and three written orders, as well as conducted courtroom observations and had a personal interview with Judge Murphy. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 71% recommended to retain, 28% not to retain and 0% expressed no opinion. Of all non-attorneys surveyed about retention, 92% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain and 5% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 96% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) It is the Commission’s unanimous recommendation to retain Judge Patrick T. Murphy.

Surveys & reports

2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Patrick T. Murphy Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Murphy: 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. Patrick T. Murphy 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 2.87, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.63, Judge Patrick T. Murphy’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.25. Judge Murphy Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.25 2.87 3.63 Sample Size - 33 128 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Murphy from 20051 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Murphy’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Murphy Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2005 2007 2008 3.86 11 2009 3.20 2.91 8 3.48 59 2010 3.30 2.86 25 3.74 58 Overall 3.25 2.87 33 3.63 128 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 Murphy’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 Murphy 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 3.96 9 82% 3.38 2 18% 3.87 3.30 2009 3.53 4 7% 3.48 55 93% 3.87 3.26 2010 3.93 41 71% 3.28 17 29% 3.88 3.28 All Yrs. 3.91 54 42% 3.43 74 58% 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Murphy’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 PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Sample Size = 33 A B C D Fail DK/NA Murphy Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 21% 24% 21% 3% 3% 27% 2.79 3.40 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 36% 18% 24% 15% 6% 0% 2.64 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 36% 12% 24% 18% 6% 3% 2.56 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 36% 30% 12% 18% 3% 0% 2.79 3.26 Overall Case Management 2.70 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 36% 36% 15% 9% 3% 0% 2.94 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 33% 33% 18% 9% 6% 0% 2.79 3.14 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 45% 12% 24% 3% 9% 6% 2.87 3.02 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 22% 17% 26% 4% 4% 26% 2.65 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.81 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 58% 27% 15% 0% 0% 0% 3.42 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 27% 21% 15% 3% 0% 33% 3.09 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.26 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 48% 18% 15% 12% 6% 0% 2.91 3.49 4b. Treating parties with respect. 52% 24% 9% 12% 3% 0% 3.09 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 27% 24% 27% 12% 9% 0% 2.48 3.29 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 27% 27% 27% 9% 6% 3% 2.63 3.24 Overall Demeanor 2.78 3.36 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 33% 27% 21% 12% 6% 0% 2.70 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 48% 24% 18% 6% 3% 0% 3.09 3.33 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 15% 12% 3% 3% 12% 3.31 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.03 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 2.87 3.30 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Murphy Judges Sample Size = 33 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 13% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 26% Completely neutral 30% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 26% 8% Very biased in favor of the defense 4% 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 58% 72% Somewhat recommend retain 19% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 13% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 6% Total Retain 77% 88% Total Not Retain 23% 12% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 55% 69% Somewhat recommend retain 18% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 12% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 6% Total Retain 73% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 4% Total Not Retain 21% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.87 Overall Average Grade 3.30 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.70 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.79 case after trial. 3.40 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.64 proceedings. 3.41 2.56 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.79 3.26 2.81 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.94 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.79 3.14 2.87 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.02 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.65 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.14 3.26 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.42 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.09 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Judge Patrick T. Murphy 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.78 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.36 2.91 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.49 3.09 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.48 in a neutral manner. 3.29 2.63 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.03 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.70 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.09 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.31 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 13% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 26% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 26% 30% Completely Neutral 47% 26% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 58% Strongly recommend retain 72% 19% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Judge Murphy Judges 13% Total Retain 77% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 23% 12% 6% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 55% Strongly recommend retain 69% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist 6% Judge Murphy Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 73% 84% Undecided or DK 6% 4% 12% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 21% 12% 6% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112288)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Sample Size = 128 A B C D Fail DK/NA Murphy Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 21% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.64 3.70 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 72% 23% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3.65 3.72 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 23% 5% 0% 2% 1% 3.58 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 18% 7% 1% 2% 2% 3.59 3.61 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.62 3.68 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 71% 23% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3.63 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 21% 5% 1% 2% 2% 3.56 3.65 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 47% 13% 2% 1% 2% 35% 3.57 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 71% 17% 5% 0% 2% 5% 3.64 3.69 Overall Fairness 3.60 3.67 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 14% 5% 0% 1% 2% 3.73 3.72 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 18% 4% 0% 1% 1% 3.71 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 16% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.76 3.75 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.73 3.74 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 59% 26% 9% 2% 2% 3% 3.44 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 18% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.68 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 17% 4% 2% 1% 8% 3.65 3.64 4d. Being prepared for cases. 73% 19% 4% 0% 2% 3% 3.66 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 22% 8% 1% 2% 1% 3.54 3.58 time. Overall Diligence 3.59 3.64 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 18% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.65 3.60 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 70% 15% 2% 1% 2% 11% 3.68 3.64 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 16% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.62 3.63 Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.62 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 3.67 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Murphy Judges Sample Size = 128 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 6% 8% Competely neutral 79% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 16% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.16 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 8% 8% Competely neutral 74% 82% Lenient sentencing total 17% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.10 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 87% 89% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 96% 95% Total Not Retain 4% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 83% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 4% Total Retain 92% 90% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 5% Total Not Retain 4% 6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.63 Overall Average Grade 3.67 3.62 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.64 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.70 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.65 3.72 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.58 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.59 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.61 3.60 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.67 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.63 heard. 3.69 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.56 case without bias. 3.65 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.57 themselves. 3.66 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.64 or her case. 3.69 3.73 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.74 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.73 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.72 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.71 understand. 3.74 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.76 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Judge Patrick T. Murphy 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.59 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.64 3.44 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.68 proceedings. 3.75 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.65 3.64 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.66 3.71 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.54 little wasted time. 3.58 3.65 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.65 3.60 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.68 possible outside pressure. 3.64 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.62 relevant facts. 3.63 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.16 Patrick T. Murphy 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.10 Patrick T. Murphy 0.04 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 87% Strongly recommend retain in office 89% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Murphy Judges Total Retain 96% 95% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 4% 6% 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 5% All Dist Undecided 5% Judge Murphy Judges Total Retain 92% 90% 2% Undecided 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 4% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Patrick T. Murphy 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 Murphy 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 Patrick T. Murphy 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 54 39 0 0 15 27.8% Defense Attorneys 43 26 0 0 17 39.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 6 6 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 104 71 0 0 33 31.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 164 102 41 5 16 13.0% Law Enforcement 161 87 32 17 25 19.4% Defendant 156 82 45 2 27 24.3% Civil Litigant 33 13 14 3 3 15.8% Jurors 124 68 1 0 54 43.9% Employees 6 2 1 0 3 60.0% Total Non-attorneys 644 354 134 27 128 25.1% Grand Total: 748 425 134 27 161 26.2% 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
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Patrick T. Murphy 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Patrick T. Murphy, 135 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 107 agreed they had worked with Judge Murphy enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 107 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 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.55 Attorneys 3.29 Total Non-Attorneys 3.81 Juror 3.98 Non-Attorney Other* 3.78 Table 1 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.55 3.29 3.81 3.98 3.78 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 88% Attorneys 84% Total Non-Attorneys 93% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 91% Table 2 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 88% 84% 93% 100% 91% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.32 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.16 3.80 3.95 3.77 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.35 3.87 3.95 3.85 Diligence 3.29 3.83 4.00 3.80 Demeanor 3.32 3.78 4.00 3.75 Fairness N/A 3.75 4.00 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 183 9 52 40% 26% Total Non- 504 72 55 15% 15% Attorneys Staff 18 0 7 50% 22% Jurors 85 0 7 8% 0% Other Non- 401 72 41 15% 16% 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Murphy, 70 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 52 agreed they had worked with Judge Murphy enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 52 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 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% 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 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 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 October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 5 ## Page 8 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). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. 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 Attorney Survey 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 Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category 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 attorney. 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 bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 6 ## Page 9 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 exceptions 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. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Patrick T. Murphy be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Total Retain 84% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 3 100% 80% 71% 67% 60% 40% 20% 13% 13% 8% 6% 5% 8% 9% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Murphy All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Murphy 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 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 3.32 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.30 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.21 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 6 Case Management Judge Patrick T. All Murphy Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Murphy Judges Responses: 52 Promptly issuing a decision on the 46% 19% 10% 4% 4% 17% 3.21 3.41 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 67% 17% 6% 6% 4% -- 3.38 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 52% 15% 6% 2% 4% 21% 3.39 3.32 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 52% 23% 6% 4% 4% 12% 3.30 3.29 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.32 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 9 ## Page 12 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 Murphy 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 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.16 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.26 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 2.86 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.08 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.22 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 52 Murphy Judges Being able to identify and 62% 12% 15% 4% 6% 2% 3.22 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 52% 19% 12% 8% 6% 4% 3.08 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 17% 4% 9% 4% 2.86 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 62% 17% 6% 4% 8% 4% 3.26 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 56% 21% 8% 8% 6% 2% 3.16 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Murphy 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 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.35 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 3.23 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.42 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 8 Communications Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 52 Murphy Judges Making sure all participants 65% 19% 10% 4% 2% -- 3.42 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 54% 21% 6% 8% 4% 8% 3.23 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.35 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Murphy 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 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 3.32 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.22 3.33 Treating participants with respect 3.37 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.38 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 9 Demeanor Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 52 Murphy Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 73% 12% 4% 4% 8% -- 3.38 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 71% 10% 10% 4% 6% -- 3.37 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 58% 21% 10% 2% 8% 2% 3.22 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.32 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Murphy 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. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.29 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 3.35 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 3.31 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 3.19 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 10 Diligence Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 52 Murphy Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 56% 23% 12% 4% 6% -- 3.19 3.16 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 63% 15% 13% 4% 4% -- 3.31 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 65% 12% 8% 4% 6% 6% 3.35 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.29 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Murphy in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 80% 60% 50% 51% 40% 23% 23% 20% 11% 9% 11% 14% 5% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Murphy All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Murphy, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Murphy enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed 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. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. 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 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 15 ## Page 18 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 16 ## Page 19 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 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Murphy 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Patrick T. All Murphy Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Murphy Judges Responses: 18 Overall performance as a 71% 14% -- -- -- 14% 3.83 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Patrick T. Murphy, 65 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 55 agreed they had worked with Judge Murphy enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 55 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, 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 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category 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. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney 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 bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 19 ## Page 22 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Total Retain 93% Neither 2% Total Not Retain 6% Figure 10 100% 87% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 12% 6% 2% 6% 2% 3% 4% 6% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Murphy All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 21 ## Page 24 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 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.78 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.75 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.75 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.78 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.85 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 13 Demeanor Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 55 Murphy Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 89% 7% 4% -- -- -- 3.85 3.66 Treating participants with respect 91% 2% 4% 2% 2% -- 3.78 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 89% 2% 4% 5% -- -- 3.75 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 89% 4% 2% 4% 2% -- 3.75 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.78 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 22 ## Page 25 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 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.75 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.80 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.84 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.69 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.78 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 14 Fairness Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 55 Murphy Judges Giving participants an 89% 5% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.78 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 89% 2% 4% -- 5% -- 3.69 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 73% 2% 2% -- 2% 22% 3.84 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 83% 7% 2% -- 2% 6% 3.80 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.75 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 23 ## Page 26 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 13 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.87 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.89 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.87 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.84 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 15 Communications Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 55 Murphy Judges Making sure all participants understand the 87% 11% -- 2% -- -- 3.84 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 91% 7% -- 2% -- -- 3.87 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 91% 7% 2% -- -- -- 3.89 3.75 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.87 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 24 ## Page 27 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 14 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.83 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.82 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.83 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.87 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.80 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 16 Diligence Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 55 Murphy Judges Beginning court on time 87% 9% 2% -- 2% -- 3.80 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 89% 4% 5% 2% -- -- 3.80 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 91% 5% 4% -- -- -- 3.87 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 87% 4% 4% 2% -- 4% 3.83 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 89% 5% 4% 2% -- -- 3.82 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.83 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 25 ## Page 28 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 15 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.80 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.76 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 3.78 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.83 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Murphy Table 17 Application of Law Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 54 Murphy Judges Giving reasons for rulings 87% 7% 2% 2% -- 2% 3.83 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 82% -- 4% 2% 2% 11% 3.78 3.56 pressure Being able to identify and 89% 2% 4% -- 4% 2% 3.76 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.80 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Murphy is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Murphy is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 92% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 4% 2% 5% 2% 4% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Murphy All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 27 ## Page 30 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Murphy are. If you feel Judge Murphy generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 93% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 2% 3% 2% 2% 4% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Murphy All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Patrick T. Murphy 28
2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Patrick T. Murphy Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Murphy: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on three 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 appellate judges and third a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. 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. 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 at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Patrick T. Murphy March 30, 2010 Page 2 The fifth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 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 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 Attorneys assigned Judge Patrick T. Murphy an overall average grade1 of 2.77, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Murphy an overall average grade of 3.55 resulting in a combined grade of 3.16. The average combined grade for all district judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.48. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Murphy Average Grades Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.16 2.77 3.55 Sample Size - 7 64 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Murphy’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Murphy Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Grade2 Average Grade Average Grade 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.13 2.77 3.86 3.48 Sample Size - - - - 0 0 0 7 0 0 11 53 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 District judges who were appointed between 2005 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 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 61%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for district judges was 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 Murphy’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 Judge Murphy Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.83 3.47 Percent of Sample 20% 80% Sample Size 13 51 District Judge Average 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Murphy’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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 77)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Sample Size = 7 A B C D Fail DK/NA Murphy Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 0% 71% 14% 0% 0% 14% 2.83 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 29% 14% 14% 29% 14% 0% 2.14 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 14% 29% 14% 0% 0% 2.86 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 29% 43% 14% 14% 0% 0% 2.86 3.25 Overall Case Management 2.67 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 43% 29% 29% 0% 0% 0% 3.14 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 14% 43% 43% 0% 0% 0% 2.71 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 57% 0% 14% 14% 14% 0% 2.71 3.09 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.85 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 57% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3.43 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 0% 29% 14% 0% 0% 57% 2.67 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.05 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 43% 14% 14% 29% 0% 0% 2.71 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 29% 29% 0% 43% 0% 0% 2.43 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 14% 29% 29% 29% 0% 0% 2.29 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 14% 14% 43% 29% 0% 0% 2.14 3.28 Overall Demeanor 2.39 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 14% 14% 43% 29% 0% 0% 2.14 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 71% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3.57 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 71% 0% 14% 0% 0% 14% 3.67 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.13 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 2.77 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Murphy Judges Sample Size = 7 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 27% Completely neutral 0% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% 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 57% 74% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 14% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 6% Total Retain 71% 89% Total Not Retain 28% 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 57% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 14% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 14% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 6% Total Retain 71% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 4% Total Not Retain 28% 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.77 Overall Average Grade 3.32 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.67 3.34 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.83 case after trial. 3.42 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.14 proceedings. 3.43 2.86 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.86 3.25 2.85 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.14 relevant facts. 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.71 3.13 2.71 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.09 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.16 3.05 Q3. Overall Communication 3.44 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.43 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.67 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.32 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Ju 2d01g0 Jeud Piciaal Pterrifocrmka nTce. S Murveuy rRpephorty 6 ## Page 10 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.39 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.38 2.71 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.51 2.43 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.29 in a neutral manner. 3.32 2.14 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.28 3.13 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.32 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.14 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.57 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.67 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. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 0% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 74% 14% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist Judge Murphy Judges 14% Total Retain 71% 89% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 28% 11% 5% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 70% 14% Somewhat recommend retain 14% All Dist 0% Judge Murphy Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 71% 84% Undecided or DK 0% 4% 14% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 28% 11% 5% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Sample Size = 27 Retention No Patrick T. District Evaluations of Judge Murphy = 12 A B C D Fail Grade Murphy Judges Judge Murphy in terms of overall performance as a judge. 27% 15% 4% 0% 0% 54% 3.50 3.53 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. While 27 out of 29 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Sample Size = 64 A B C D Fail DK/NA Murphy Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 61% 33% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.54 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 64% 33% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3.60 3.68 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 59% 31% 5% 0% 3% 2% 3.46 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 25% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.54 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 64% 30% 2% 0% 2% 3% 3.60 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 59% 28% 5% 2% 3% 3% 3.44 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 41% 17% 0% 2% 3% 38% 3.45 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 61% 25% 6% 0% 2% 6% 3.53 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.51 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 72% 22% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.65 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 67% 27% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.60 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 72% 25% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3.68 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.64 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 48% 36% 6% 2% 2% 6% 3.37 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 22% 5% 0% 2% 5% 3.61 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 25% 2% 2% 2% 11% 3.56 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 27% 0% 0% 3% 5% 3.59 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 59% 30% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.46 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 61% 23% 5% 0% 2% 9% 3.57 3.57 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 63% 20% 3% 0% 2% 13% 3.63 3.60 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 20% 5% 3% 2% 8% 3.51 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Murphy Judges Sample Size = 64 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 11% 10% Competely neutral 73% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 17% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.07 0.08 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 8% 10% Competely neutral 73% 80% Lenient sentencing total 18% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.06 0.07 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 83% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 96% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 92% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 6% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.54 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.54 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.60 3.68 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.46 manner. 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.57 3.51 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.60 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.44 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.45 themselves. 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.53 or her case. 3.65 3.64 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.65 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.68 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Ju 20d10g Jeud icPiaal Pterrfiocrmkan cTe .S uMrveuy Rreppohrty 14 ## Page 18 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.37 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.61 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.56 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.59 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.46 little wasted time. 3.55 3.57 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.63 possible outside pressure. 3.60 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.51 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.07 Patrick T. Murphy 0.08 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.06 Patrick T. Murphy 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15 ## Page 19 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 13% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Murphy Judges Total Retain 96% 93% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 13% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 5% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Murphy Judges Total Retain 92% 88% 0% Undecided 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 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 of the three 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 District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 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 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 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 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 in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 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, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 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, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. 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—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 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 divided by the number of possible evaluations. 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. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: All 29 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 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning his or her overall performance as a judge. (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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were asked 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 District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, 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 eligible to stand for retention in 2010 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-seven questionnaires were returned, though not all 27 showed grades for every district judge. III 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. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 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. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 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 data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 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. 2 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, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 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—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—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 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 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 Murphy 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Judge Patrick T. Murphy 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 10 0 0 5 33.3% Defense Attorneys 6 4 0 0 2 33.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4 4 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 25 18 0 0 7 28.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 114 72 28 3 11 12.8% Law Enforcement 111 64 21 13 13 14.4% Defendant 129 69 35 1 24 25.5% Civil Litigant 33 14 14 3 2 10.5% Jurors 24 11 0 0 13 54.2% Employees 6 4 1 0 1 20.0% Total Non-attorneys 417 234 99 20 64 20.1% Grand Total: 442 252 99 20 71 20.7% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1053 667 26 1 359 35.0% Defense Attorneys 1623 920 42 0 661 41.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 23 14 1 0 8 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2540 1157 133 4 1246 51.9% Guardian ad litem 14 5 0 0 9 64.3% Other Attorneys Civil 776 499 21 2 254 33.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role 30 7 5 0 18 72.0% Total Attorneys 6059 3269 228 7 2555 43.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 3572 1855 929 100 688 27.1% Defendant 11205 5065 5122 70 948 15.8% Victim 31 18 7 1 5 21.7% Witness 3941 2016 1271 186 468 18.8% Other 1045 590 309 11 135 18.6% Civil Litigant 8005 4441 1954 117 1493 25.2% Witness 266 133 61 6 66 33.2% Other 195 84 51 6 54 39.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 700 328 282 1 89 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 28960 14530 9986 498 3946 20.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 11195 4330 560 132 6173 58.8% Employees 283 113 35 22 113 50.0% Total Other 11507 4445 595 154 6313 57.9% Total 46526 22244 10809 659 12814 35.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 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. None of the three surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, Appellate Judges Regarding District 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 2555 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.42 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 25% 10% 4% 2% 14% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 27% 11% 4% 2% 5% 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 24% 11% 6% 3% 13% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 21% 10% 5% 4% 20% 3.09 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 20% 8% 3% 2% 36% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 23% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.55 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 21% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 24% 10% 4% 3% 5% 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 25% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 54% 19% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 2555 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 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 74% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 89% Total Not Retain 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 30 ## Page 34 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 10232 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.63 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 8% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.62 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 13% 4% 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 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 16% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 6% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 11% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.60 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 31 ## Page 35 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 10232 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.08 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 11% Average 0.07 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided 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 responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 32 ## Page 36 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges DK/ Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. 28% 15% 3% 0% 0% 54% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 37 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (continued) No Grade Dennis Hall .................... A B C D F James P. Kelly .............. A B C D F Philip J. McNulty ............ A B C D F Gilbert Martinez ............. A B C D F Stephen M. Munsinger .. A B C D F G. David Miller .............. A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 5th Judicial District Edward D. Bronfin ......... A B C D F R. Thomas Moorhead ... A B C D F Norman D. Haglund ...... A B C D F Karen A. Romeo ........... A B C D F William W. Hood, III ....... A B C D F Michael A. Martinez ....... A B C D F 6th Judicial District .... William D. Robbins ....... A B C D F Gregory G. Lyman ........ A B C D F Donna J. Schmalberger A B C D F Jeffrey R. Wilson ........... A B C D F Herbert L. Stern, III ........ A B C D F 7th Judicial District C. Jean Stewart ............. A B C D F Jeff B. Herron ................ A B C D F Brian Whitney ................ A B C D F 8th Judicial District David B. Woods ............ A B C D F Jolene C. Blair ............... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District Terence Gilmore ........... A B C D F Leslie J. Gerbracht ........ A B C D F Daniel J. Kaup ............... A B C D F 4th Judicial District Gregory M. Lammons ... A B C D F David A. Gilbert ............. A B C D F Stephen J. Schapanski . A B C D F Deborah J. Grohs .......... A B C D F 9th Judicial District Barney Iuppa ................. A B C D F Gail Nichols ................... A B C D F 1 ## Page 43 10th Judicial District 20th Judicial District No Grade No Grade Thomas B. Flesher ........ A B C D F Lael E. Montgomery ...... A B C D F Jill S. Mattoon ................ A B C D F 21st Judicial District Larry C. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Dick Gurley ................... A B C D F 11th Judicial District Valerie J. Robison ......... A B C D F Stephen A. Groome ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Sharon L. Hansen ......... A B C D F Martin A. Gonzales ........ A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F 13th Judicial District (None) 14th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a sheet Mary C. Hoak ................ A B C D F for comments you would like to make about any 15th Judicial District of these district Judges. Stanley A. Brinkley ........ A B C D F 16th Judicial District Michael A. Schiferl ........ A B C D F Thank You. 17th Judicial District John T. Bryan ................ A B C D F C. Scott Crabtree .......... A B C D F Katherine R. Delgado .... A B C D F Thomas R. Ensor .......... A B C D F F. Michael Goodbee ...... A B C D F Patrick T. Murphy .......... A B C D F C. Vincent Phelps, Jr. .... A B C D F Jill-Ellyn Straus .............. A B C D F 18th Judicial District Angela Arkin .................. A B C D F Richard B. Caschette .... A B C D F Timothy L. Fasing .......... A B C D F Jeffrey K. Holmes .......... A B C D F Carlos Armando Samour,Jr. A B C D F William B. Sylvester ...... A B C D F Elizabeth Ann Weishaupl A B C D F 19th Judicial District Julie C. Hoskins ............ A B C D F Daniel Maus .................. A B C D F Thomas J. Quammen .... A B C D F 2 ## Page 44 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 45 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 _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 4
- 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Patrick T. Murphy Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Murphy: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on three 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 appellate judges and third a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. 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. 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 at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Patrick T. Murphy March 30, 2010 Page 2 The fifth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 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 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 Attorneys assigned Judge Patrick T. Murphy an overall average grade1 of 2.77, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Murphy an overall average grade of 3.55 resulting in a combined grade of 3.16. The average combined grade for all district judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.48. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Murphy Average Grades Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.16 2.77 3.55 Sample Size - 7 64 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Murphy’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Murphy Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Grade2 Average Grade Average Grade 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.13 2.77 3.86 3.48 Sample Size - - - - 0 0 0 7 0 0 11 53 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 District judges who were appointed between 2005 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 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 61%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for district judges was 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 Murphy’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 Judge Murphy Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.83 3.47 Percent of Sample 20% 80% Sample Size 13 51 District Judge Average 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Murphy’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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 77)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Sample Size = 7 A B C D Fail DK/NA Murphy Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 0% 71% 14% 0% 0% 14% 2.83 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 29% 14% 14% 29% 14% 0% 2.14 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 14% 29% 14% 0% 0% 2.86 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 29% 43% 14% 14% 0% 0% 2.86 3.25 Overall Case Management 2.67 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 43% 29% 29% 0% 0% 0% 3.14 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 14% 43% 43% 0% 0% 0% 2.71 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 57% 0% 14% 14% 14% 0% 2.71 3.09 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.85 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 57% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3.43 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 0% 29% 14% 0% 0% 57% 2.67 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.05 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 43% 14% 14% 29% 0% 0% 2.71 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 29% 29% 0% 43% 0% 0% 2.43 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 14% 29% 29% 29% 0% 0% 2.29 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 14% 14% 43% 29% 0% 0% 2.14 3.28 Overall Demeanor 2.39 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 14% 14% 43% 29% 0% 0% 2.14 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 71% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3.57 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 71% 0% 14% 0% 0% 14% 3.67 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.13 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 2.77 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Murphy Judges Sample Size = 7 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 27% Completely neutral 0% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% 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 57% 74% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 14% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 6% Total Retain 71% 89% Total Not Retain 28% 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 57% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% 14% Undecided or Don't Know 0% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 14% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 6% Total Retain 71% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 4% Total Not Retain 28% 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.77 Overall Average Grade 3.32 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.67 3.34 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.83 case after trial. 3.42 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.14 proceedings. 3.43 2.86 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.86 3.25 2.85 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.14 relevant facts. 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.71 3.13 2.71 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.09 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.16 3.05 Q3. Overall Communication 3.44 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.43 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.67 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.32 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Ju 2d01g0 Jeud Piciaal Pterrifocrmka nTce. S Murveuy rRpephorty 6 ## Page 10 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.39 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.38 2.71 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.51 2.43 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.29 in a neutral manner. 3.32 2.14 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.28 3.13 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.32 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.14 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.57 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.67 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. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 0% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 74% 14% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist Judge Murphy Judges 14% Total Retain 71% 89% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 28% 11% 5% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 70% 14% Somewhat recommend retain 14% All Dist 0% Judge Murphy Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 71% 84% Undecided or DK 0% 4% 14% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 28% 11% 5% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy All Sample Size = 27 Retention No Patrick T. District Evaluations of Judge Murphy = 12 A B C D Fail Grade Murphy Judges Judge Murphy in terms of overall performance as a judge. 27% 15% 4% 0% 0% 54% 3.50 3.53 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. While 27 out of 29 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPaattrriicckk TT.. MMuurrpphhyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Sample Size = 64 A B C D Fail DK/NA Murphy Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 61% 33% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.54 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 64% 33% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3.60 3.68 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 59% 31% 5% 0% 3% 2% 3.46 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 25% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.54 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 64% 30% 2% 0% 2% 3% 3.60 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 59% 28% 5% 2% 3% 3% 3.44 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 41% 17% 0% 2% 3% 38% 3.45 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 61% 25% 6% 0% 2% 6% 3.53 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.51 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 72% 22% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.65 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 67% 27% 3% 0% 2% 2% 3.60 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 72% 25% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3.68 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.64 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 48% 36% 6% 2% 2% 6% 3.37 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 22% 5% 0% 2% 5% 3.61 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 25% 2% 2% 2% 11% 3.56 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 27% 0% 0% 3% 5% 3.59 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 59% 30% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.46 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 61% 23% 5% 0% 2% 9% 3.57 3.57 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 63% 20% 3% 0% 2% 13% 3.63 3.60 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 20% 5% 3% 2% 8% 3.51 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Patrick T. Murphy Patrick T. All District Murphy Judges Sample Size = 64 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 11% 10% Competely neutral 73% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 17% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.07 0.08 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 8% 10% Competely neutral 73% 80% Lenient sentencing total 18% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.06 0.07 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 83% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 96% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 92% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 6% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.54 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.54 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.60 3.68 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.46 manner. 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.57 3.51 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.60 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.44 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.45 themselves. 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.53 or her case. 3.65 3.64 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.65 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.68 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Ju 20d10g Jeud icPiaal Pterrfiocrmkan cTe .S uMrveuy Rreppohrty 14 ## Page 18 Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.37 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.61 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.56 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.59 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.46 little wasted time. 3.55 3.57 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.63 possible outside pressure. 3.60 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.51 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.07 Patrick T. Murphy 0.08 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.06 Patrick T. Murphy 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15 ## Page 19 Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges Judge Patrick T. Murphy Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Murphy be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 13% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Murphy Judges Total Retain 96% 93% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 13% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 5% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Murphy Judges Total Retain 92% 88% 0% Undecided 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Patrick T. Murphy All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 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 of the three 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 District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 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 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 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 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 in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 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, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 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, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. 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—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 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 divided by the number of possible evaluations. 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. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: All 29 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 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning his or her overall performance as a judge. (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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were asked 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 District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, 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 eligible to stand for retention in 2010 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-seven questionnaires were returned, though not all 27 showed grades for every district judge. III 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. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 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. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 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 data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 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. 2 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, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 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—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—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 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 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 Murphy 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Judge Patrick T. Murphy 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 10 0 0 5 33.3% Defense Attorneys 6 4 0 0 2 33.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4 4 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 25 18 0 0 7 28.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 114 72 28 3 11 12.8% Law Enforcement 111 64 21 13 13 14.4% Defendant 129 69 35 1 24 25.5% Civil Litigant 33 14 14 3 2 10.5% Jurors 24 11 0 0 13 54.2% Employees 6 4 1 0 1 20.0% Total Non-attorneys 417 234 99 20 64 20.1% Grand Total: 442 252 99 20 71 20.7% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1053 667 26 1 359 35.0% Defense Attorneys 1623 920 42 0 661 41.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 23 14 1 0 8 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2540 1157 133 4 1246 51.9% Guardian ad litem 14 5 0 0 9 64.3% Other Attorneys Civil 776 499 21 2 254 33.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role 30 7 5 0 18 72.0% Total Attorneys 6059 3269 228 7 2555 43.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 3572 1855 929 100 688 27.1% Defendant 11205 5065 5122 70 948 15.8% Victim 31 18 7 1 5 21.7% Witness 3941 2016 1271 186 468 18.8% Other 1045 590 309 11 135 18.6% Civil Litigant 8005 4441 1954 117 1493 25.2% Witness 266 133 61 6 66 33.2% Other 195 84 51 6 54 39.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 700 328 282 1 89 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 28960 14530 9986 498 3946 20.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 11195 4330 560 132 6173 58.8% Employees 283 113 35 22 113 50.0% Total Other 11507 4445 595 154 6313 57.9% Total 46526 22244 10809 659 12814 35.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 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. None of the three surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, Appellate Judges Regarding District 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 2555 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.42 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 25% 10% 4% 2% 14% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 27% 11% 4% 2% 5% 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 24% 11% 6% 3% 13% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 21% 10% 5% 4% 20% 3.09 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 20% 8% 3% 2% 36% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 23% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.55 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 21% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 24% 10% 4% 3% 5% 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 25% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 54% 19% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 2555 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 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 74% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 89% Total Not Retain 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 30 ## Page 34 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 10232 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.63 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 8% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.62 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 13% 4% 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 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 16% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 6% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 11% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.60 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 31 ## Page 35 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 10232 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.08 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 11% Average 0.07 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided 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 responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 32 ## Page 36 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges DK/ Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. 28% 15% 3% 0% 0% 54% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 37 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (continued) No Grade Dennis Hall .................... A B C D F James P. Kelly .............. A B C D F Philip J. McNulty ............ A B C D F Gilbert Martinez ............. A B C D F Stephen M. Munsinger .. A B C D F G. David Miller .............. A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 5th Judicial District Edward D. Bronfin ......... A B C D F R. Thomas Moorhead ... A B C D F Norman D. Haglund ...... A B C D F Karen A. Romeo ........... A B C D F William W. Hood, III ....... A B C D F Michael A. Martinez ....... A B C D F 6th Judicial District .... William D. Robbins ....... A B C D F Gregory G. Lyman ........ A B C D F Donna J. Schmalberger A B C D F Jeffrey R. Wilson ........... A B C D F Herbert L. Stern, III ........ A B C D F 7th Judicial District C. Jean Stewart ............. A B C D F Jeff B. Herron ................ A B C D F Brian Whitney ................ A B C D F 8th Judicial District David B. Woods ............ A B C D F Jolene C. Blair ............... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District Terence Gilmore ........... A B C D F Leslie J. Gerbracht ........ A B C D F Daniel J. Kaup ............... A B C D F 4th Judicial District Gregory M. Lammons ... A B C D F David A. Gilbert ............. A B C D F Stephen J. Schapanski . A B C D F Deborah J. Grohs .......... A B C D F 9th Judicial District Barney Iuppa ................. A B C D F Gail Nichols ................... A B C D F 1 ## Page 43 10th Judicial District 20th Judicial District No Grade No Grade Thomas B. Flesher ........ A B C D F Lael E. Montgomery ...... A B C D F Jill S. Mattoon ................ A B C D F 21st Judicial District Larry C. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Dick Gurley ................... A B C D F 11th Judicial District Valerie J. Robison ......... A B C D F Stephen A. Groome ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Sharon L. Hansen ......... A B C D F Martin A. Gonzales ........ A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F 13th Judicial District (None) 14th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a sheet Mary C. Hoak ................ A B C D F for comments you would like to make about any 15th Judicial District of these district Judges. Stanley A. Brinkley ........ A B C D F 16th Judicial District Michael A. Schiferl ........ A B C D F Thank You. 17th Judicial District John T. Bryan ................ A B C D F C. Scott Crabtree .......... A B C D F Katherine R. Delgado .... A B C D F Thomas R. Ensor .......... A B C D F F. Michael Goodbee ...... A B C D F Patrick T. Murphy .......... A B C D F C. Vincent Phelps, Jr. .... A B C D F Jill-Ellyn Straus .............. A B C D F 18th Judicial District Angela Arkin .................. A B C D F Richard B. Caschette .... A B C D F Timothy L. Fasing .......... A B C D F Jeffrey K. Holmes .......... A B C D F Carlos Armando Samour,Jr. A B C D F William B. Sylvester ...... A B C D F Elizabeth Ann Weishaupl A B C D F 19th Judicial District Julie C. Hoskins ............ A B C D F Daniel Maus .................. A B C D F Thomas J. Quammen .... A B C D F 2 ## Page 44 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 45 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 _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 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

2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026