← All judges

Henry Nieto

Court of Appeals

Meets Standards(Retain)2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Court of Appeals
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 68.8% yes
    754,132 yes · 341,260 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Henry E. Nieto BE RETAINED. The vote was not unanimous. Judge Nieto was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in November 1999, and is deputy chief judge of that court. He was a district judge in the First Judicial District from 1985-1999 and Chief Judge of that district from 1995-1999. From 1978-1985 he was a Jefferson County judge. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as deputy, chief deputy and assistant district attorney of the First Judicial District (1967-1978) and was in private law practice (1970-1974). Judge Nieto places great importance on community service activities, which the Commission believes is important for the judiciary. He speaks frequently to clubs and schools and believes that it is important to "put a human face" on the judiciary. While trial judges surveyed gave Judge Nieto high ratings, especially with regard to treating parties equally and assisting other judges on the court, attorneys’ marks were lower. Attorneys were particularly critical in three areas: rendering well-written and understandable opinions, managing cases with minimum delay and making correct decisions based upon the law and facts. These ratings concern the Commission, which believes timely, clear and legally sound appellate decisions are essential. In his interview with the Commission, Judge Nieto stated that while he has some weaknesses in his knowledge of the law, computer skills and reading efficiency, he is working hard to improve in these areas. He also indicated that some of the criticism from the attorneys may be due to his long tenure as a trial court judge. Judge Nieto told the Commission that he was more comfortable as an appellate judge because he has more time to consider his decisions. The Commission’s lack of unanimity on Judge Nieto’s retention reflects a concern that, despite his 24 years of experience on the trial bench, Judge Nieto has not met the higher standards for appellate court judges. A majority of the Commission believes, however, that this should not disqualify him from serving on the Court of Appeals, particularly in view of his willingness to work to overcome his deficiencies, and therefore supports his retention.
  • 1994 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 64.2% yes
    82,320 yes · 45,974 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Judge Nieto was appointed to the District Court bench in February 1985. From 1978 to 1985, he served as a Jefferson County Court Judge. Prior to his judicial appointment, he served as a Municipal Judge and as an Assistant District Attorney for the 1st Judicial District. He has also been in the private practice of law. Judge Nieto currently serves on the Colorado Supreme Court Criminal Jury Instructions Committee. He is a member of the board of directors of Bridgeway, an organization which provides homes for pregnant teenagers. He has also served as a Boy Scout leader. Judge Nieto presides over criminal, civil, domestic relations, and some juvenile cases. An overwhelming majority of those surveyed recommended that Judge Nieto be retained. He received high ratings for his knowledge of the law and procedure. Groups surveyed rated Judge Nieto high for his sense of justice, diligence, fairness, courtesy, demeanor, and compassion. Based on this information the Commission on Judicial Performance recommends Judge Nieto SHOULD BE RETAINED.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 14, 2002 Judge Henry E. Nieto Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 Dear Judge Nieto: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of attorneys who have had cases with opinions authored by Court of Appeals judges or Supreme Court justices who face a retention vote in the next general election, and a second survey concerning these judges and justices is conducted among all of the State’s trial judges. This report contains the results of these two surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the trial-judges survey. · Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge or justice. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for trial -judge comments. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arapahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 Judge Henry E. Nieto Attorney Survey Number Average Letter A B C D Fail Responding Grade Grade Being fair and impartial toward both 63% 11% 8% 6% 11% 98 3.1 B sides of the case. Writing opinions that are well written 46% 25% 13% 10% 5% 99 3.0 B and understandable. Managing cases efficiently and with 42% 37% 17% 3% 1% 76 3.2 B minimal delay. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 44% 36% 13% 6% 1% 89 3.2 B Having knowledge of the rules of 57% 23% 9% 5% 5% 77 3.2 B evidence and proceedure. Making decisions without regard to 53% 21% 10% 4% 13% 78 3.0 B possible criticism. Making the correct decision based 46% 19% 13% 10% 12% 104 2.8 B- upon the law and facts. Being prepared for oral argument. 49% 27% 9% 11% 5% 82 3.0 B Asking thoughtful questions in oral 51% 21% 12% 9% 7% 81 3.0 B argument. Treating parties equally regardless of 73% 11% 5% 1% 9% 75 3.4 B+ race, sex or economic status. Being courteous toward attorneys. 64% 18% 13% 3% 2% 88 3.4 B+ Not engaging in ex parte 87% 6% 2% 2% 4% 53 3.7 A- communications. Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Court of Appeals Page 1 ## Page 3 Judge Henry E. Nieto Attorney Survey Do you recommend that Judge Nieto be retained in office or not be retained in office? Retain in office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75% Do not retain in office . . . . . . . . 17% No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. %. . Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Court of Appeals Page 2 ## Page 4 Judge Henery E. Nieto Trial Judge Survey Number Average Letter A B C D Fail Responding Grade Grade Being fair and impartial toward both 63% 30% 6% 1% 134 3.5 B+ sides of the case. Writing opinions that are well written 50% 38% 11% 1% 1% 146 3.4 B+ and understandable. Managing cases efficiently and with 51% 40% 7% 1% 1% 86 3.4 B+ minimal delay. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 58% 33% 9% 1% 92 3.5 B+ Having knowledge of the rules of 69% 24% 6% 1% 141 3.6 B+ evidence and proceedure. Making decisions without regard to 72% 22% 4% 1% 1% 140 3.6 B+ possible criticism. Making the correct decision based 58% 30% 10% 1% 1% 147 3.4 B+ upon the law and facts. Being prepared for oral argument. 69% 24% 5% 2% 58 3.6 B+ Asking thoughtful questions in oral 67% 18% 12% 2% 49 3.5 B+ argument. Willingness to undertake 70% 23% 5% 2% 64 3.6 B+ administrative responsibilities. Being courteous toward attorneys. 75% 19% 3% 2% 93 3.7 A- Not engaging in ex parte 87% 10% 1% 1% 70 3.8 A- communications. Willingness to help other judges and 77% 20% 1% 1% 1% 81 3.7 A- justices. Treating parties equally regardless of 86% 10% 2% 2% 121 3.8 A- race, sex or economic status. Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Court of Appeals Page 1 ## Page 5 Judge Henery E. Nieto Trial Judge Survey Do you recommend that Judge Nieto be retained in office or not be retained in office? Retain in office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89% Do not retain in office . . . . . . . . 1% No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Court of Appeals Page 2 ## Page 6 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the three Court of Appeals judges and one Supreme Court justice standing for retention in November 2002. Talmey-Drake Research was also provided with the list of the 268 trial-court judges. Two surveys were conducted, one among attorneys who had opinions authored by one of the three Court of Appeals judges or the Supreme Court justice, and a second survey of all trial judges. Questionnaire: Copies of the two questionnaires used are provided at the end of this report. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in a number of different areas. These grades were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Attorneys 1215 470 406 138 201 53.7% Trial Judges 268 189 48 0 31 79.7% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or trial judge. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. 1 ## Page 7 A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and trial judges. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 2 ## Page 8 Judge Henry E. Nieto Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate Attorney 269 109 99 26 35 52.4% Judge 268 185 48 31 78.1% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Court of Appeals

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