Laurie Noble

Evaluation history

• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Commission vote: 9 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 81.3% yes

  2,144 yes · 493 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 9-0 that Judge Laurie Anne Noble MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Noble was appointed as an Associate County Judge in Rio Blanco County, in Rangely, in 1992. In 2005, she was appointed County Judge in Rio Blanco County, in Meeker, and currently services both courts, as well as the Municipal Court for the Town of Meeker. Previously, Judge Noble was in private practice, an Adjunct Instructor at Colorado Northwestern Community College, and Town Attorney for the Town of Rangely. She received her bachelor’s degree in Journalism from West Virginia University in 1982 and her Juris Doctor degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1989. Judge Noble is active in Rio Blanco County, giving legal presentations in the schools and working with Mock Trial teams. The Commission reviewed survey data from a cross-section of respondents who had experience with Judge Noble including attorneys, court staff, law enforcement employees, jurors and litigants. The Commission also reviewed Judge Noble’s caseload data, her self-evaluation and three opinions written and issued by her. Commissioners observed her in court and conducted a personal interview. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Noble meets judicial performance standards?”  Survey results from attorneys responded 100% yes, she meets performance standards. Of the total non-attorneys responding to the survey, 80% answered yes, 10% answered no and 10% had no opinion. Regarding overall communication, demeanor, diligence and case management where a score of 4 is excellent, with the scale descending 3, 2, 1, and 0 for fail, attorneys gave Judge Noble a perfect 4 out of a 4 rating. Her application and knowledge of law received 3.97. All county judges in Colorado eligible to stand for retention scored lower in all categories. Compared to attorney responses, ratings by non-attorneys were slightly more critical of her overall performance and the survey results reflected a slightly lower average. All of her ratings by attorneys were higher than average for all county judges in Colorado. She moves cases efficiently, but gives extra time when compliance with orders is difficult because of location in Rio Blanco County.  The Commission felt her written decisions were deliberately thought out, well written and clear. Judge Noble presides over civil, domestic relations, criminal, misdemeanor, traffic and small claims cases in both Meeker and Rangely. Judge Noble’s strengths were noted that she is respectful, fair, patient, knowledgeable, and maintains control of her court. Observations in court and during her personal interview reflected her commitment to treat everyone with patience and courtesy; it was apparent she has an open mind and treats everyone with respect.  Judge Noble is very prepared for her daily docket, exhibits an excellent judicial temperament and, by all accounts, is well suited for this judicial district/community.  The Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Noble Meets Judicial Performance Standards.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 78.3% yes

  2,313 yes · 642 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2015 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Laurie Noble BE RETAINED. Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July of 1992 and part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Meeker in 2005.  She still holds both positions.  Judge Noble received her Bachelor of Science in Journalism from West Virginia University in 1982 and her law degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1989.  Prior to her appointments, Judge Noble was an attorney in private practice.  Her community activities include school activities and presentations and the Mock Trial program at the Colorado Law Enforcement Training Program in Rangely. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Noble, and members observed her in court.  The results of surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys were reviewed.  Also reviewed were her self-evaluation and three opinions by her which were clear, thorough and very well written.  Survey results from attorneys recommended 100% retention.  Comments rated Judge Noble highly in fairness, diligence, preparedness, demeanor, clarity and knowledge of the law.  Of non-attorneys completing the survey 81% recommended retention, 12% recommended not to retain, and 6% made no recommendation.  The combined retention recommendation percentage was 88%. Judge Noble’s caseload is approximately 10% civil, 10% domestic relations, 25% criminal, 25% misdemeanor, 25% traffic and 5% small claims cases. The distance Judge Noble must travel between the two courts can be difficult, but she seems to handle it well.  She is well-integrated into the communities she serves and is a well-respected member of the Ninth Judicial Bench.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 79.8% yes

  1,953 yes · 493 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim 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 Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Laurie Noble BE RETAINED. Judge Noble received a Bachelor of Science in Journalism from West Virginia University in 1982.  She received her law degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1989.  Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July of 1992 and part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Meeker in 2005.  She continues to hold both positions.  Prior to her appointments to the bench, she was employed in private practice, focusing on insurance defense and appellate work.  Her community activities include involvement with the Partners program, school activities and presentations, foster parenting, and charitable support organizations. The Commission reviewed survey data from a cross-section of respondents: court staff, law enforcement employees, jurors, litigants, and lawyers.  The Commission reviewed Judge Noble’s caseload data, her self-evaluation and three opinions written and issued by her. Some Commission members observed her in court.  Lastly, the Commission conducted a personal interview.  Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 88% recommended to retain, 0% not to retain, and 13% made no recommendation. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 92% recommended to retain, 0% not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation.  (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) Attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Noble’s judicial performance above average. Both groups commented that she is fair, compassionate, kind, logical, knowledgeable, dedicated, courteous, approachable, conscientious, respectful, patient, intelligent, and maintains control of her court.  Some in the survey criticized her for a slight bias for the prosecution.  Members of the Commission found her written opinions carefully thought out, legally substantive, and clear.  All agreed she is a valued and valuable representative of the judiciary.
• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Laurie Noble BE RETAINED. Judge Noble received a Bachelor of Science in Journalism from West Virginia University in 1982. She received her law degree from West Virginia University College of Law in 1989. Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July of 1992 and part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Meeker in 2005. She continues to hold both positions. Prior to her appointments to the bench, she was employed in private practice, focusing on insurance defense and appellate work. Her community activities include involvement with the Partners program, school activities and presentations, foster parenting, and charitable support organizations. The Commission reviewed survey data from a cross-section of respondents: court staff, law enforcement employees, jurors, litigants, and lawyers. The Commission reviewed Judge Noble’s caseload data, her self-evaluation and three opinions written and issued by her. Some Commission members observed her in court. Lastly, the Commission conducted a personal interview. Attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Noble’s judicial performance above average. Both groups commented that she is fair, compassionate, kind, logical, knowledgeable, dedicated, courteous, approachable, conscientious, respectful, patient, intelligent, and maintains control of her court. Some in the survey criticized her for a slight bias for the prosecution. Members of the Commission found her written opinions carefully thought out, legally substantive, and clear. All agreed she is a valued and valuable representative of the judiciary. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 93% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 3% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 96% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 82% recommended to retain, 8% not to retain, and 9% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 91% recommended to retain and 9% not to retain. (These percentages might not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(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 Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Laurie Noble BE RETAINED, with one Commissioner absent. Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July 1992 and part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Meeker in 2005. She continues to hold both positions. Prior to her appointments to the bench, she was in private practice, focusing on insurance defense and appellate work. She says she works closely with the community’s youth in various fund-raising activities, including the Relay for Life, and also helps with the middle school reading program. It was noted that her participation in and understanding of the community is reflected in her understanding of the personalities that come before her. The Commission reviewed survey data from a cross-section of respondents: court staff, law enforcement employees, jurors, litigants, and lawyers. The Commission reviewed Judge Noble’s caseload data, her self-evaluation and three opinions written and issued by her. Some Commission members observed her in court. Lastly, the Commission conducted a personal interview. Attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Noble’s judicial performance above average. Both groups commented that she is fair, compassionate, dedicated, courteous, approachable, conscientious, respectful, willing to listen, and maintains control of her court. Some in the survey criticized her for a slight bias for the prosecution. Members of the Commission found her written opinions carefully thought out, legally substantive, and clear. All agreed she is a valued and valuable representative of the judiciary. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 80% recommended to retain, 10% not to retain, and 10% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 89% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain. Of all non-attorney surveyed, 81% recommended to retain, 14% not to retain, and 6% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 85% recommended to retain and 15% not to retain. (These percentages might not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2008 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 78.8% yes

  2,120 yes · 570 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2008 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Laurie A. Noble BE RETAINED. Background: Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July of 1992. She was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Meeker in 2005. She continues to hold both positions. Prior to 1992, Judge Noble was in private practice, practicing mainly in the areas of insurance defense and appellate work. Judge Noble is a certified foster parent and participates in charity work including fund raising for Relay for Life. Judge Noble believes "community involvement shows the human side of every judge." The Commission reviewed surveys from district attorneys, defense attorneys, private attorneys, defendants, litigants, victims, witnesses, court staff, jurors, and law enforcement. The Commission also reviewed caseload data, Judge Noble’s self-evaluation, three written opinions issued and authored by Judge Noble, courtroom observations and interviewed her in person. Strengths: Attorneys who responded to survey questions rated Judge Noble above average overall and specifically in the areas of communication and demeanor. Attorneys commented that Judge Noble is polite, even tempered, competent, and treats lawyers and defendants with respect and compassion. The commission found Judge Noble’s written opinions to be clear, concise, and beneficial, especially to litigants who appeared in court without lawyers. Weaknesses: In the survey responses, Judge Noble received grades slightly below the average for other county court judges and all trial judges in her overall application and knowledge of the law, specifically in the areas of basing decisions on evidence and arguments, having knowledge of relevant and substantive law and rules of procedure and evidence and being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. The Commission encourages Judge Noble to consider and reflect on the decreased scores from the 2006 survey results in application and knowledge of the law and the increase in perception of bias toward the prosecution and harshness in sentencing by attorneys surveyed. Recommendation: 65% of attorneys surveyed and 90% of non-attorneys surveyed strongly recommended retention. Overall, 94% of attorneys and 92% of non-attorneys supported her retention.
• 2006 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 80.4% yes

  1,594 yes · 388 no50% needed to retain
  Reports: 2006 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Laurie A. Noble BE RETAINED. Judge Noble was appointed part-time Rio Blanco County Court Judge for Rangely in July of 1992, and served in that position until 2004, when the part-time positions for the Rangely and Meeker courts were merged. She continues to serve in that capacity. Prior to 1992, Judge Noble was in private practice, restricting her practice to insurance defense and appellate work. Judge Noble is applying to be a foster parent “to provide a safe and loving refuge to at-risk children”. Other community services mentioned by the Judge involve her volunteering for school activities and charitable nonpolitical fundraisers. The Commission reviewed surveys from lawyers, defendants, plaintiffs, court staff, jurors, law enforcement, and a parole officer. The Commission also reviewed caseload data, Judge Noble’s self-evaluation, courtroom observations and interviewed her in person. Judge Noble describes her judicial philosophy as one of treating all participants in her court with respect and courtesy, in order to foster “respect for the law instead of contempt for the system”. The surveys indicate that she is succeeding in this endeavor. Attorneys rated her slightly below the composite averages on issuing post trial decisions promptly. She is working on taking less time with research in order to reduce the time taken to render decisions. Judge Noble received exceptionally high grades in Overall Communications, Overall Demeanor and Overall Case Management. Of the attorneys responding, 100% strongly recommended retention, while 93% of the non-attorneys recommended retention, both of which are significantly higher than average for other county judges. The Commission recognizes that Judge Noble has a reputation for treating people fairly and with respect; that she is doing an excellent job and that Rio Blanco County is very fortunate to have her as their County Judge. The Commission voted unanimously that she BE RETAINED.
• 2002 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Laurie A. Noble BE RETAINED. Judge Nobel was appointed to the Rio Blanco Associate County Court in July 1992. Prior to her appointment to the bench, she was an associate attorney in general private practice in Grand Junction, Colorado, specializing in insurance defense. Judge Noble received her law degree from the West Virginia University College of Law in 1989. Over the past two years, 20% of her cases were civil and 80% were criminal. Judge Noble also serves as Municipal Court Judge for the town of Meeker and is employed as a part-time attorney for the town of Rangley. Her community service includes a Junior Partnership with an at-risk youth, participation in mock trails held by the high school and civic presentations to local first graders. The Commission reviewed written evaluations received from five of the attorneys who appeared in her court in the last two years, and from 60 non-attorneys, including five law enforcement personnel, seven plaintiffs and 39 defendants. They also reviewed the judge’s written self-evaluation and conducted a personal interview with her. Judge Noble promises to be vigilant about the potential conflict of interest between her judicial and town attorney positions and of the problems of serving in a small town. She willingly recuses herself if requested by a party or if she perceives a potential conflict. She tries to avoid all ex parte discussions about any case or party before her court. Judge Noble wants litigants and criminal defendants, in particular, to understand that the system exists to help them as well as to deter future offenses. She seeks to improve her judicial skills, especially in knowledge of law and procedure. Judge Noble received above average to high composite ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in all categories, particularly in the areas of courtesy; lack of race, age or gender bias; communicating clearly, thoroughly and in a well-reasoned manner; in being accessible and well-prepared; and managing her cases, docket and courtroom efficiently. Of the attorney evaluations received, 80% voted to retain Judge Noble and 20% (one attorney) voted not to retain. The Commission was impressed with Judge Noble and voted unanimously to recommend retention.
• 1998 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Laurie Anne Noble BE RETAINED. Judge Noble was appointed to the Associate County Court of Rio Blanco County in 1992. Judge Noble by review is an outstanding judge and a credit to Colorado's judicial system. Her court in Rangely is isolated from other courts (50 miles to the nearest court which is, itself, isolated). One of the ways she compensates for this disadvantage is in steady and conscientious study. The statistical information and the written comments from polling clearly indicate that Judge Noble is praiseworthy in every category. The statistical data and the comments are nearly unanimous in their praise. Sentencing is by law and conservative. The Commission found Judge Noble to be thoughtful, pleasant, polite and studious. She appears to have a quiet confidence and an ability to draw her own conclusions and make her own assessments without an effort to reflect upon how others might criticize. At least one observer considers her to be the best judge on the western slope. She possesses, in a quiet and pleasing manner, all of the attributes of a superior judge. The Commission urges those voters who habitually vote against the retention of any and all judges to vote for the retention of this outstanding judge. Percentage rates for the retention of Judge Noble are: Attorneys 100%, Court Personnel 100%, Jurors 100% and Litigants 100%. The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Laurie Anne Noble be retained in office.
• 1994 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Rio Blanco · Rio Blanco

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Judge Noble was appointed to the Associate County Court of Rio Blanco County, which is in Rangely, in 1992. This is a part-time office. The cases in her court are principally criminal cases and traffic infractions. Judge Noble is a licensed attorney and was admitted to practice in 1989. Although Judge Noble rates herself as “average” in most categories, the questionnaires returned indicated consistently high ratings in all categories including courtesy, demeanor, punctuality and sentencing.  A high percentage of questionnaires were returned. An attorney’s comment: “I was extremely pleased with the demeanor and actions of the Judge. She was very considerate of my client and other people I saw before her.” The Ninth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Laurie A. Noble BE RETAINED.

Surveys & reports

• 2018 cycle
  • 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    —

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    88%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    80%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report County Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Non Attorneys .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Demeanor .17 Fairness .18 Communications .19 Diligence .20 Application of Law .21 Performance Score.22 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Laurie A. Noble, 26 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 19 agreed they had worked with Judge Noble enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 19 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.99 4 3.66 3.41 3.12 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Laurie A. Noble Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.66 3.99 3.41 N/A 3.12 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 88% 80% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 17%17% 10%10% 6% 6% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Laurie A. Noble Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 88% 100% 80% 0% 67% standards No, does not meet performance 6% 0% 10% 0% 17% standards No opinion 6% 0% 10% 0% 17% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Laurie A. Noble Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 4.00 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.97 3.39 N/A 3.00 Knowledge of Law Communications 4.00 3.39 N/A 3.22 Diligence 4.00 3.42 N/A 3.23 Demeanor 4.00 3.41 N/A 3.04 Fairness N/A 3.43 N/A 3.08 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 28 0 10 36% 20% Total Non- 225 68 16 10% 31% Attorneys Staff 10 0 6 60% 17% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 215 68 10 7% 40% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Noble, 10 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Noble enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 8 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 “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Noble on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 4 Case Management Overall Average 3.39 4 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.55 4 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 4 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 4 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.34 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Laurie A. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Noble Promptly issuing a decision on the 6 -- -- -- -- 2 8 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 8 -- -- -- -- -- 8 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 7 -- -- -- -- 1 8 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 8 -- -- -- -- -- 8 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Noble on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.97 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.16 4 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.24 4 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.10 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 4 are similar 3.15 3.83 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.11 4 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.11 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 6 -- -- -- -- 1 7 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 6 -- -- -- -- 1 7 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 4 -- -- -- -- 1 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 5 1 -- -- -- 1 7 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 6 -- -- -- -- 1 7 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Noble on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 4 Communications Overall Average 3.38 4 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.46 4 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.30 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 5 -- -- -- -- 2 7 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Noble on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 4 Demeanor Overall Average 3.28 4 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.36 4 Treating participants with respect 3.30 4 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 dignity Treating participants with respect 7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Noble on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 4 Diligence Overall Average 3.18 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 4 rules 3.14 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 4 for cases 3.22 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 4 they are complicated and time consuming 3.23 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 4 -- -- -- -- 3 7 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Noble meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Laurie A. Noble Yes, meets performance 100% standards No, does not meet 0% performance standards No opinion 0% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Laurie A. Noble, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 11 agreed they had worked with Judge Noble enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 11 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 14 ## Page 17 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 15 ## Page 18 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 16 ## Page 19 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 8 0 1 2 3 4 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.36 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.61 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.60 3.27 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.36 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 11 Demeanor Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 7 2 1 1 -- -- 11 Treating participants with respect 9 -- 2 -- -- -- 11 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 7 2 1 -- 1 -- 11 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 8 1 -- 2 -- -- 11 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 17 ## Page 20 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 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.43 Fairness Overall Average 3.56 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.59 3.27 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.53 3.36 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.54 3.45 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.59 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 12 Fairness Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 9 1 -- 1 -- -- 11 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 8 1 -- 1 1 -- 11 case without bias Treating fairly people who 8 1 -- 2 -- -- 11 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 8 1 1 1 -- -- 11 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 18 ## Page 21 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 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.18 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.65 3.55 Using language that everyone can understand 3.70 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.45 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 13 Communications Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 8 -- 1 1 1 -- 11 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 9 -- 1 1 -- -- 11 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 8 1 1 1 -- -- 11 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 19 ## Page 22 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 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.42 Diligence Overall Average 3.59 3.73 Beginning court on time 3.53 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.45 for cases 3.64 3.45 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.67 3.27 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.60 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.18 wasted time 3.55 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 14 Diligence Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 9 1 1 -- -- -- 11 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 8 1 1 1 -- -- 11 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 7 2 2 -- -- -- 11 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 8 -- 1 2 -- -- 11 Managing court proceedings so that there is 7 1 1 2 -- -- 11 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 20 ## Page 23 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 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.39 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.45 Giving reasons for rulings 3.52 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.27 outside pressure 3.55 3.45 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.52 Judge Noble All County Judges Table 15 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laurie A. Noble A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 9 -- 1 -- 1 -- 11 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 7 2 1 -- 1 -- 11 pressure Being able to identify and 9 -- 1 -- 1 -- 11 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 21 ## Page 24 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Noble meets judicial performance standards? Table 16 Judge Laurie A. Noble Yes, meets performance 80% standards No, does not meet 10% performance standards No opinion 10% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 22
• 2016 cycle
  • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble 555 Main Street, P.O. Box 1150 Meeker, CO 81641 Dear Judge Noble: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The 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. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Laurie A. Noble received an overall combined average grade of 3.53 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.64, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.42, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.42 [not shown below]. Judge Noble Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.53 3.64 3.42 Sample Size -- 19 35 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Noble’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.65 3.72 12 3.58 16 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.37 3.44 7 3.30 19 Overall 3.53 3.64 19 3.42 35 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.81, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.27. 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 Noble’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Noble Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 0.00 0 0% 3.42 35 100% 3.81 3.27 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Laurie A. Noble (Sample Size 19) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 19 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 59% 35% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.53 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 12% 12% 0% 0% 0% 3.65 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 24% 24% 0% 0% 6% 3.25 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 71% 24% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.65 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.52 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 29% 0% 6% 6% 0% 3.29 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 71% 18% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3.53 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 59% 6% 12% 0% 0% 24% 3.62 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 77% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.77 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.55 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 88% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.88 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 82% 12% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3.88 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.88 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 18% 12% 0% 0% 0% 3.59 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 65% 24% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3.47 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.72 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 65% 24% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3.47 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 71% 18% 6% 0% 0% 6% 3.69 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 82% 6% 6% 0% 0% 6% 3.81 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 3333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 30% Completely neutral 69% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 8% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 71% 53% Recommend retain 24% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 0% 9% Recommend not retain 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 95% 77% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 6% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4444 ## Page 8 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.64 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.52 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.53 case after trial. 3.54 3.65 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.25 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.65 3.37 3.55 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.29 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 3.53 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.62 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 3.77 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.88 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.88 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.88 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.72 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.82 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 4.00 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.59 neutral manner. 3.18 3.47 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.66 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.47 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.69 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.81 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 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% 23% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 69% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 8% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? 71% Strongly recommend retain 53% 24% Recommend retain 24% 0% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Noble Judges* Total Retain 95% 77% 6% Neither 0% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 6% 14% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Laurie A. Noble (Sample Size 35) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 35 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 54% 29% 9% 6% 0% 3% 3.35 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 11% 11% 0% 3% 0% 3.54 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 69% 11% 9% 6% 6% 0% 3.31 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 63% 17% 11% 6% 3% 0% 3.31 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 68% 24% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.59 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 14% 3% 11% 3% 0% 3.34 3.45 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 11% 6% 9% 3% 23% 3.22 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 62% 9% 12% 0% 3% 15% 3.48 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.41 3.50 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 71% 11% 9% 3% 0% 6% 3.61 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 3% 6% 0% 0% 3.60 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 66% 20% 11% 0% 0% 3% 3.56 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.59 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 57% 17% 17% 3% 3% 3% 3.26 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 17% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3.65 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 3% 0% 6% 9% 3.53 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 20% 6% 0% 3% 6% 3.55 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 26% 6% 0% 0% 6% 3.61 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 51% 14% 20% 6% 3% 6% 3.12 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 54% 11% 9% 3% 6% 17% 3.28 3.45 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 17% 6% 9% 6% 9% 3.16 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.19 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.42 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 39% 13% Competely neutral 52% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 10% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.62 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 26% 13% Competely neutral 69% 74% Lenient sentencing total 6% 13% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.69 0.10 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 69% 70% Recommend retain 13% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 7% Recommend not retain 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 82% 84% Neither 9% 7% Total Not Retain 9% 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.42 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.38 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.35 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.54 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.31 manner. 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.31 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.41 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.50 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.59 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.34 case without bias. 3.45 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.22 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.48 their case. 3.54 3.59 Q3. Overall Communications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.61 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.56 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.26 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.65 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.53 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.55 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.61 little wasted time. 3.48 3.19 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.12 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.28 possible outside pressure. 3.45 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.16 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.62 Laurie A. Noble 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.69 Laurie A. Noble 0.10 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? 69% Strongly recommend retain 70% 13% Recommend retain 14% 9% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 7% Judge Noble Judges* 6% Total Retain 82% 84% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 9% 7% Total Not Retain 9% 10% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges [Please Note: Due to insufficient survey responses, the non-attorney results for Judge Ruth M. Acheson are not included in this report.] a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: • Colorado Judicial Department • Colorado District Attorneys’ Council • Colorado Public Defender’s Office • Denver County Courts • District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county 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 county judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Noble is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Defense Attorneys 31 16 2 0 13 44.8% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 5 1 2 0 2 66.7% Total Attorneys 41 18 4 0 19 51.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 4 2 2 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Defendant 321 157 132 6 26 13.8% Civil Litigant 36 19 10 0 7 26.9% Total Non-attorneys 364 179 144 6 35 15.9% Grand Total: 405 197 148 6 54 21.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 1359 477 428 0 454 48.8% Defense Attorneys 5458 1988 1427 0 2043 50.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 17 5 4 0 8 61.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 199 66 48 0 85 56.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1109 325 393 0 391 54.6% Total Attorneys 8142 2861 2300 0 2981 51.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 180 101 60 12 7 5.8% Witness 3505 2059 941 134 371 14.5% Other 336 221 82 9 24 9.4% Law Enforcement 3358 2551 368 73 366 12.2% Defendant 15702 7544 6825 179 1154 13.0% Civil Litigant 4907 2614 1583 103 607 18.3% Witness 629 340 133 17 139 28.0% Other 9 8 0 0 1 11.1% Jurors 4706 2082 550 95 1979 47.6% Employees, including Interpreters 400 106 49 0 245 69.8% Probation Officers 332 92 82 0 158 63.2% Total Non-attorneys 34064 17718 10673 622 5051 21.6% Grand Total: 42206 20579 12973 622 8032 27.5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 2995 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 15% 5% 2% 1% 25% 3.54 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 21% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.47 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 51% 19% 7% 2% 2% 19% 3.43 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 23% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 18% 10% 6% 6% 22% 3.00 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 52% 23% 10% 3% 3% 10% 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 17% 7% 3% 2% 27% 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 18% 11% 6% 6% 1% 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 21% 10% 4% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 53% 22% 9% 3% 4% 9% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 16% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 53% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 77% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5051 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.54 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.48 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 16% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 14% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 14% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.45 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 3% 2% 4% 26% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.50 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 14% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 18% 7% 3% 2% 4% 3.48 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.54 4d.Being prepared for cases. 70% 14% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.58 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 19% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 64% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 59% 12% 5% 2% 4% 18% 3.45 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 14% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.13 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 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 13% Average 0.1 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 70% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 84% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report County 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 Non Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Laurie A. Noble, 38 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 27 agreed they had worked with Judge Noble enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 27 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F (for Fail) scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.63 Attorneys 3.89 Total Non-Attorneys 3.49 Juror 4.00 Non-Attorney Other* 3.46 Table 1 Judge Laurie A. Noble Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.63 3.89 3.49 4.00 3.46 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 88% Attorneys 100% Total Non-Attorneys 81% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 80% Table 2 Judge Laurie A. Noble Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 88% 100% 81% 100% 80% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Laurie A. Noble Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.86 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.87 3.45 4.00 3.42 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.89 3.52 4.00 3.49 Diligence 3.85 3.47 4.00 3.44 Demeanor 4.00 3.54 4.00 3.51 Fairness N/A 3.49 4.00 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 30 1 9 59% 47% Total Non- 359 123 18 9% 14% Attorneys Staff 10 0 4 40% 0% Jurors 18 0 1 6% 0% Other Non- 331 123 13 8% 19% 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 Laurie A. Noble 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Noble, 17 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 9 agreed they had worked with Judge Noble enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 9 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 “County Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,372 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.6 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions: In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate. 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 (which was 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 6 ## Page 9 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 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 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 Laurie A. Noble 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Laurie A. Noble be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Laurie A. Noble Total Retain 100% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 89% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 11% 12% 8% 6% 8% 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 Noble All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 Noble 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 3.45 Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.89 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.78 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.89 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 6 Case Management Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Noble Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 78% 11% -- -- -- 11% 3.88 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 78% 22% -- -- -- -- 3.78 3.46 Setting reasonable schedules for 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.86 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 Noble 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 3.27 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.87 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.89 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.78 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 4.00 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.78 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.89 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Noble Judges Being able to identify and analyze 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 78% 22% -- -- -- -- 3.78 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.32 the circumstances are similar Being fair and impartial to both 78% 22% -- -- -- -- 3.78 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.87 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 Noble 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 3.46 Communications Overall Average 3.89 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.89 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.89 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 8 Communications Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Noble Judges Making sure all participants 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.89 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 Noble 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 3.36 Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.39 Treating participants with respect 4.00 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 9 Demeanor Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Noble Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 4.00 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 Noble 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 8 3.31 Diligence Overall Average 3.85 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.89 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.78 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.89 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 10 Diligence Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 9 Noble Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 78% 22% -- -- -- -- 3.78 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 89% 11% -- -- -- -- 3.89 3.37 when they are complicated and time consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.85 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Noble in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 67% 60% 54% 40% 33% 28% 20% 11% 6% 1% 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 Noble All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Laurie A. Noble, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 18 agreed they had worked with Judge Noble enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 18 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 15 ## Page 18 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 16 ## Page 19 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: 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 Laurie A. Noble 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Laurie A. Noble Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 12% Figure 10 100% 80% 69% 71% 60% 40% 16% 20% 12% 6% 5% 6% 3% 6% 5% 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 Noble All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.59 Demeanor Overall Average 3.54 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.53 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.56 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.67 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 12 Demeanor Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 18 Noble Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 67% 22% 6% -- 6% -- 3.44 3.61 Treating participants with respect 78% 17% -- 6% -- -- 3.67 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 72% 17% 6% 6% -- -- 3.56 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 88% -- -- -- 12% -- 3.53 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.54 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.49 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.50 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.44 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.50 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 13 Fairness Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 18 Noble Judges Giving participants an opportunity 67% 28% -- -- 6% -- 3.50 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the case 83% 6% -- -- 11% -- 3.50 3.55 without bias Treating fairly people who 78% 11% -- -- 11% -- 3.44 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 72% 17% -- 11% -- -- 3.50 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.49 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.68 Communications Overall Average 3.52 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.56 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.56 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.44 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 14 Communications Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 18 Noble Judges Making sure all participants 61% 33% -- -- 6% -- 3.44 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 78% 6% 11% 6% -- -- 3.56 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 72% 11% 17% -- -- -- 3.56 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.52 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.60 Diligence Overall Average 3.47 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.44 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.35 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.78 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.61 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.17 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 15 Diligence Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 18 Noble Judges Beginning court on time 72% 6% -- 11% 11% -- 3.17 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 78% 11% 6% 6% -- -- 3.61 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 83% 11% 6% -- -- -- 3.78 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 72% 6% -- 11% 6% 6% 3.35 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 72% 11% 6% 11% -- -- 3.44 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.47 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.55 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.45 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.47 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.31 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Noble Table 16 Application of Law Judge Laurie A. Noble All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA County Number of Responses: 17 Noble Judges Giving reasons for rulings 61% 22% 11% -- -- 6% 3.53 3.56 Willing to make decision without 56% 22% -- 6% 6% 11% 3.31 3.54 regard to possible outside pressure Being able to identify and analyze 72% 11% -- 6% 6% 6% 3.47 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.45 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Noble is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Noble is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 80% 80% 72% 60% 40% 20% 11% 11% 4% 7% 6% 5% 3% 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 Noble All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 24 ## Page 27 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 Noble are. If you feel Judge Noble generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 80% 72% 63% 60% 40% 20% 11% 11% 6% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Noble All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Laurie A. Noble 25
• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble 555 Main Street, P.O. Box 1150 Meeker, CO 81641 Dear Judge Noble: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 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 respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Laurie A. Noble May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Laurie A. Noble received an overall combined average grade of 3.64 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.75, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.52, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Noble Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non‐attorney Overall Grade 3.64 3.75 3.52 Sample Size ‐ 18 41 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Noble’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non‐Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 3.73 4.00 1 3.46 19 2010 3.67 3.77 5 3.57 6 2012 3.65 3.72 12 3.58 16 Overall 3.64 3.75 18 3.52 41 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. 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 Noble’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Noble Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non‐Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Noble Judges* Jurors Non‐Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non‐Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.74 5 12% 3.50 36 88% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1188)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 18 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 67% 28% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3.71 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.78 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 61% 11% 22% 0% 0% 6% 3.41 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.72 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.66 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 17% 6% 6% 0% 0% 3.56 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 83% 6% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.72 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 67% 6% 11% 0% 0% 17% 3.67 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.87 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.71 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 78% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3.82 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.83 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.89 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 83% 11% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.78 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 78% 17% 0% 6% 0% 0% 3.67 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.84 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 78% 17% 0% 6% 0% 0% 3.67 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 78% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3.82 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 83% 11% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3.88 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.79 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 25% Completely neutral 67% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 3% Don't know or not sure 7% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 75% 56% Recommend retain 25% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 79% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 75% 56% Recommend retain 25% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 0% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 100% 78% Neither 0% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.75 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.66 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.71 case after trial. 3.50 3.78 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.72 3.37 3.71 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.56 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 3.72 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.67 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.87 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.83 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.83 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.82 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.84 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.89 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 4.00 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.78 neutral manner. 3.24 3.67 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.79 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.67 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.82 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.88 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 27% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 67% Completely Neutral 51% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 7% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain 56% 25% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Noble Judges* Total Retain 100% 79% 0% Recommend not retain Neither 0% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain 56% 25% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 0% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Noble Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 100% 78% 5% Neither 0% 9% 0% Total Not Retain 0% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4411)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 41 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 12% 10% 5% 0% 2% 3.53 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 12% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3.73 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 12% 5% 0% 5% 0% 3.59 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 20% 5% 0% 5% 2% 3.50 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.59 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 71% 17% 12% 0% 0% 0% 3.59 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 3.66 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 59% 10% 5% 5% 0% 22% 3.56 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 5% 5% 0% 5% 3.61 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.61 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 68% 12% 5% 0% 7% 7% 3.45 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 20% 5% 2% 0% 0% 3.63 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 63% 24% 7% 0% 0% 5% 3.59 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.56 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 56% 17% 17% 2% 7% 0% 3.12 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 20% 0% 2% 2% 0% 3.63 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 59% 12% 2% 0% 7% 20% 3.42 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 63% 20% 5% 0% 2% 10% 3.57 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 59% 27% 10% 0% 2% 2% 3.43 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.43 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 51% 27% 10% 0% 0% 12% 3.47 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 51% 7% 2% 5% 2% 32% 3.46 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 15% 5% 7% 2% 7% 3.39 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.44 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 29% 13% Competely neutral 67% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 4% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.70 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% 12% Competely neutral 76% 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.24 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% 67% Recommend retain 7% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 6% Recommend not retain 14% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 78% 85% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 14% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 63% 64% Recommend retain 6% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% 6% Recommend not retain 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 13% 5% Total Retain 69% 81% Neither 6% 6% Total Not Retain 13% 9% Don't Know 13% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.52 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.59 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.73 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.59 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.50 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.61 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.59 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.66 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.56 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.61 or her case. 3.58 3.56 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.45 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.63 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.59 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.43 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.12 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.63 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.42 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.57 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.43 little wasted time. 3.49 3.44 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.47 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.46 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.39 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.70 Laurie A. Noble 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.24 Laurie A. Noble 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 71% Strongly recommend retain 67% 7% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 7% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges* 14% Recommend not retain Total Retain 78% 85% 3% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 14% 9% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 63% Strongly recommend retain 64% 6% Recommend retain 17% 6% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 13% Judge Noble Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 69% 81% Neither 6% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 13% 9% 6% Total DK 13% 5% Don't know enough to make a 13% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county 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 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” 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 County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Noble is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 7 4 0 0 3 42.9% Defense Attorneys 27 14 0 0 13 48.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 3 1 1 0 1 50.0% Total Attorneys 39 20 1 0 18 47.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 4 2 2 0 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 5 2 0 0 3 60.0% Defendant 261 159 74 3 25 13.4% Civil Litigant 54 34 12 0 8 19.0% Witness 4 3 1 0 0 0.0% Jurors 18 11 1 1 5 29.4% Total Non-attorneys 346 211 90 4 41 16.0% Grand Total: 385 231 91 4 59 20.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 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 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 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 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 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 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for 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
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO 81648 Dear Judge Noble: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The 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. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Laurie A. Noble received an overall combined average grade of 3.63 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.54, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.72, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Noble Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.63 3.54 3.72 Sample Size - 14 52 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Noble’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 3.61 3.56 6 3.65 28 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 3.66 3.53 8 3.79 24 Overall 3.63 3.54 14 3.72 52 Table 2 11 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Noble’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Noble Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.83 13 25% 3.68 39 75% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 22 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1144)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 14 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 43% 14% 7% 0% 0% 36% 3.56 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 64% 29% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.57 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 64% 21% 7% 0% 0% 7% 3.62 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 71% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.71 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.62 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 50% 29% 7% 0% 7% 7% 3.23 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 57% 21% 14% 0% 0% 7% 3.46 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 50% 7% 14% 7% 0% 21% 3.27 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 62% 23% 8% 0% 0% 8% 3.58 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.39 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 79% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.71 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 71% 14% 7% 7% 0% 0% 3.50 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.61 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.71 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 79% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.71 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 7% 14% 7% 0% 0% 3.43 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 64% 14% 7% 7% 0% 7% 3.46 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.58 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 57% 21% 7% 7% 0% 7% 3.38 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 71% 21% 0% 0% 0% 7% 3.77 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 71% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 3.57 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 33 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 25% Completely neutral 62% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 8% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% 55% Recommend retain 13% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 13% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 88% 78% Neither 13% 9% Total Not Retain 0% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 44 ## Page 8 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.62 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.56 case after trial. 3.50 3.57 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.62 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.71 3.37 3.39 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.23 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.46 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.27 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 3.58 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.61 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.71 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.58 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.71 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.71 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.43 neutral manner. 3.20 3.46 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.57 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.38 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.77 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.57 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 23% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 62% Completely Neutral 51% 8% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 8% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 55% 13% Recommend retain 23% 13% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Noble Judges* Total Retain 88% 78% 0% Neither 13% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5522)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 52 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 76% 14% 6% 2% 0% 2% 3.67 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 14% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3.78 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 80% 8% 6% 2% 0% 4% 3.73 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 80% 10% 6% 0% 0% 4% 3.77 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.74 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 16% 0% 2% 0% 2% 3.78 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 76% 16% 4% 2% 2% 0% 3.63 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 63% 8% 2% 2% 2% 22% 3.66 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 75% 16% 4% 0% 0% 6% 3.75 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.71 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 16% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 10% 4% 2% 0% 2% 3.76 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 10% 2% 4% 0% 0% 3.75 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.78 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 70% 22% 4% 2% 0% 2% 3.63 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 20% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.69 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 76% 14% 2% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 78% 16% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3.76 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 6% 4% 0% 0% 3.58 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 74% 20% 2% 0% 0% 4% 3.75 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 14% 4% 2% 0% 12% 3.72 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 14% 6% 0% 0% 6% 3.73 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.73 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.72 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 11% Competely neutral 88% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.06 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 23% 10% Competely neutral 70% 76% Lenient sentencing total 7% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.27 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 83% 68% Recommend retain 9% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 6% Recommend not retain 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 5% Total Retain 92% 86% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 0% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.72 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.74 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.67 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.78 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.73 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.77 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.71 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.78 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.63 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.66 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.75 or her case. 3.60 3.78 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.84 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.76 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.75 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble 11 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.63 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.69 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.66 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.76 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.58 little wasted time. 3.51 3.73 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.75 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.72 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.73 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.06 Laurie A. Noble 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.27 Laurie A. Noble -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 12 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? 83% Strongly recommend retain 68% 9% Recommend retain 18% 9% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Noble Judges* 0% Total Retain 92% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 9% 6% Total Not Retain 0% 8% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 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 County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 17 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the 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 County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 18 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Noble is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 5 1 0 0 4 80.0% Defense Attorneys 24 12 3 0 9 42.9% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 3 1 1 0 1 50.0% Total Attorneys 32 14 4 0 14 50.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 7 5 0 0 2 28.6% Defendant 258 92 141 5 20 17.1% Civil Litigant 28 11 12 0 5 31.3% Witness 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 30 12 5 0 13 52.0% Employees, including Interpreters 18 6 1 0 11 64.7% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 345 128 160 5 52 28.1% Grand Total: 377 142 164 5 66 31.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2261 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2272 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2283 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2294 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 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 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3205 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present 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 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
• 2012 cycle
  • 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO 81648 Dear Judge Noble: 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. Laurie A. Noble 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, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.55, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.51, Judge Laurie A. Noble’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.53. Judge Noble Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.53 3.55 3.51 Sample Size - 27 100 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Noble from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Noble’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.36 3.33 3 3.39 29 2008 3.62 3.50 2 3.73 10 2009 3.62 3.76 6 3.47 49 2010 3.64 3.52 16 3.75 12 Overall 3.53 3.55 27 3.51 100 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 county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. 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 1 ## Page 5 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 Noble’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 100 2007 % 3.39 29 % 3.82 3.30 2008 3.50 3 30% 3.81 7 70% 3.82 3.26 2009 3.73 14 29% 3.37 35 71% 3.83 3.22 2010 4.00 4 33% 3.63 8 67% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.76 21 21% 3.44 79 79% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Noble’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county 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 LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 37% 33% 0% 0% 0% 30% 3.53 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 67% 30% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3.63 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 37% 7% 4% 0% 0% 3.37 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 26% 4% 4% 0% 4% 3.54 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.52 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 22% 7% 4% 4% 0% 3.37 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 59% 19% 15% 4% 0% 4% 3.38 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 44% 37% 4% 7% 0% 7% 3.28 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 65% 26% 4% 0% 0% 4% 3.64 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.42 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 78% 19% 0% 4% 0% 0% 3.70 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 67% 13% 0% 8% 0% 13% 3.57 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.64 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 22% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3.70 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.89 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 4% 7% 0% 0% 3.56 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 74% 15% 4% 4% 0% 4% 3.65 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.70 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 63% 22% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3.42 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 33% 4% 4% 0% 4% 3.46 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 22% 4% 4% 0% 4% 3.58 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Sample Size = 27 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 5% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 28% Completely neutral 60% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 5% 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 84% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 96% 88% Total Not Retain 4% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 81% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 93% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 5% Total Not Retain 4% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.52 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.53 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.63 proceedings. 3.44 3.37 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.54 3.39 3.42 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.37 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.38 3.16 3.28 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.64 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.64 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.70 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.57 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.70 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.70 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.89 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.56 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.65 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.49 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.42 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.46 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.58 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 5% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 25% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 60% Completely Neutral 50% 5% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 5% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 84% Strongly recommend retain 71% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges 4% Total Retain 96% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 4% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain 68% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 4% Judge Noble Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 93% 84% Undecided or DK 4% 5% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 4% 12% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 100 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 19% 10% 1% 2% 0% 3.49 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 78% 13% 4% 0% 5% 0% 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 73% 13% 5% 3% 5% 0% 3.46 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 15% 3% 1% 9% 1% 3.38 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 68% 18% 9% 2% 2% 1% 3.49 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 13% 4% 3% 5% 1% 3.48 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 9% 4% 5% 3% 24% 3.39 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 13% 5% 2% 4% 5% 3.51 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.47 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 68% 17% 6% 0% 6% 2% 3.45 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 16% 6% 2% 2% 0% 3.58 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 17% 3% 0% 1% 3% 3.72 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.58 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 57% 24% 10% 2% 2% 4% 3.38 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 18% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 15% 5% 0% 3% 16% 3.55 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 66% 16% 8% 0% 1% 8% 3.60 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 22% 8% 0% 1% 3% 3.56 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 16% 9% 0% 3% 5% 3.51 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 5% 7% 2% 4% 24% 3.45 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 10% 5% 3% 7% 9% 3.34 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.43 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.51 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Sample Size = 100 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 13% 12% Competely neutral 82% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.23 0.12 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 12% 12% Competely neutral 78% 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.20 0.06 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 82% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 6% Total Retain 88% 92% Total Not Retain 12% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 76% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 5% Total Retain 81% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 8% Total Not Retain 11% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.51 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.48 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.49 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.59 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.46 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.38 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.47 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.49 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.48 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.39 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.51 or her case. 3.59 3.58 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.45 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.58 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.72 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.56 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.38 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.71 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.55 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.60 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.56 little wasted time. 3.50 3.43 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.51 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.45 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.34 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.23 Laurie A. Noble 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.20 Laurie A. Noble 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 82% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges Total Retain 88% 92% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 12% 8% 2% 10% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 7% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Noble Judges Total Retain 81% 85% 2% Undecided 7% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 11% 7% 9% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County 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 Noble 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 Laurie A. Noble 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 19 13 0 0 6 31.6% Defense Attorneys 58 40 0 0 18 31.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 6 4 0 0 2 33.3% Total Attorneys 85 58 0 0 27 31.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Witness 2 1 0 1 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 5 1 3 0 1 50.0% Defendant 564 333 170 4 57 14.5% Civil Litigant 101 58 25 0 18 23.7% Witness 11 4 5 1 1 16.7% Jurors 48 23 3 1 21 46.7% Employees 8 3 2 1 2 33.3% Total Non-attorneys 741 425 208 8 100 18.8% Grand Total: 826 483 208 8 127 20.6% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 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 County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 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 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 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 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 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 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble 555 Main Street, P.O. Box 1150 Meeker, CO 81641 Dear Judge Noble: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 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 respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Laurie A. Noble March 26, 2012 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Laurie A. Noble received an overall combined average grade of 3.58 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.57, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.58, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.45 [not shown below]. Judge Noble Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.58 3.57 3.58 Sample Size - 30 99 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Noble’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 3.62 3.50 2 3.73 10 2009 3.62 3.76 6 3.47 49 2010 3.64 3.52 16 3.75 12 2011 3.61 3.56 6 3.65 28 Overall 3.58 3.58 30 3.58 99 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.85, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.29. 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 Noble’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Noble Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Noble Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.78 33 33% 3.48 66 67% 3.85 3.29 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3300)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 30 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 40% 20% 3% 0% 0% 37% 3.58 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 73% 20% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 60% 27% 10% 3% 0% 0% 3.43 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 23% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3.59 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.57 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 20% 3% 3% 7% 0% 3.37 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 63% 20% 10% 3% 0% 3% 3.48 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 53% 23% 7% 7% 0% 10% 3.37 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 73% 15% 8% 0% 0% 4% 3.68 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.48 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 77% 20% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3.70 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 70% 10% 0% 10% 0% 10% 3.56 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.63 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 20% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.67 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 87% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.87 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 77% 13% 3% 7% 0% 0% 3.60 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 73% 13% 3% 7% 0% 3% 3.59 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.68 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 67% 20% 0% 7% 3% 3% 3.45 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 67% 23% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3.59 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 20% 7% 3% 0% 3% 3.55 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.53 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Sample Size = 30 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 4% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 30% Completely neutral 62% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 1% Don't know or not sure 4% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 86% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 96% 86% Total Not Retain 3% 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 83% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 3% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 93% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 3% 5% Total Not Retain 3% 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.57 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.57 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.58 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.67 proceedings. 3.44 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.59 3.40 3.48 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.37 relevant facts. 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.48 3.15 3.37 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.68 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 3.63 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.70 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.56 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.31 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.68 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.29 3.67 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.87 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.36 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.60 in a neutral manner. 3.19 3.59 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.53 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.28 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.45 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.59 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.55 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 4% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 23% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 62% Completely Neutral 49% 8% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain 70% 10% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Retention Judge Noble Judges 0% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 96% 86% 7% Total Not Retain 3% 14% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 83% Strongly recommend retain 66% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Including Und/DK Respondents 3% Undecided or DK All Cnty 5% Retention Judge Noble Judges 0% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 93% 81% 6% Undecided or DK 3% 5% Total Not Retain 3% 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 9)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 99 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 20% 6% 2% 2% 0% 3.53 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 79% 11% 5% 0% 4% 0% 3.61 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 76% 15% 4% 1% 4% 0% 3.57 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 0% 6% 1% 3.53 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 18% 6% 1% 2% 1% 3.58 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 15% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 3.53 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 58% 11% 4% 2% 1% 24% 3.60 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 15% 4% 2% 2% 4% 3.61 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.61 3.57 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 70% 21% 3% 0% 5% 1% 3.52 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 14% 5% 1% 2% 0% 3.64 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 3% 2% 0% 3% 3.72 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 59% 24% 8% 2% 2% 4% 3.42 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 19% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 15% 3% 1% 4% 14% 3.52 3.59 4d. Being prepared for cases. 70% 18% 5% 0% 1% 6% 3.66 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 7% 1% 1% 3% 3.59 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 21% 6% 0% 2% 6% 3.56 3.51 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 59% 7% 6% 2% 2% 23% 3.55 3.53 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 13% 5% 2% 4% 9% 3.49 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.53 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Sample Size = 99 Judges 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% 12% Competely neutral 85% 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 4% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.20 0.15 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 15% 12% Competely neutral 75% 78% Lenient sentencing total 11% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.20 0.14 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 5% Total Retain 91% 92% Total Not Retain 9% 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 76% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 7% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 5% Total Retain 82% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 8% Total Not Retain 8% 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.58 Overall Average Grade 3.58 3.56 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.61 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.57 manner. 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.53 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.48 3.61 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.57 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.58 heard. 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.64 case without bias. 3.53 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.60 themselves. 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.61 or her case. 3.60 3.63 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.52 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.64 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.72 can hear what's being said. 3.71 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble 12 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.58 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.42 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.69 proceedings. 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.52 3.59 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.66 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.59 little wasted time. 3.52 3.53 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.52 3.56 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.51 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.55 possible outside pressure. 3.53 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.49 relevant facts. 3.52 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.20 Laurie A. Noble 0.15 All County Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.20 Laurie A. Noble 0.14 All County Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Judges 13 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 84% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 8% All Cnty Retention 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Noble Judges 3% Total Retain 91% 92% Total Not Retain 9% 8% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 9% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 8% All Cnty Retention 2% Judge Noble Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 82% 84% 2% Undecided 9% 8% 6% Total Not Retain 8% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Retention Judges 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 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: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention).  The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an 16 ## Page 20 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The 17 ## Page 21 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges  RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. 18 ## Page 22 As stated above, court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 19 ## Page 23 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 county retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” 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 non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Noble is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 19 11 0 0 8 42.1% Defense Attorneys 51 31 1 0 19 38.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 7 4 1 0 2 33.3% Total Attorneys 79 47 2 0 30 39.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Witness 2 1 0 1 0 0.0% Law Enforcement 11 7 3 0 1 12.5% Defendant 489 252 187 7 43 14.2% Civil Litigant 66 34 21 0 11 24.4% Witness 13 6 5 1 1 12.5% Jurors 72 31 7 1 33 50.8% Employees, including Interpreters 17 4 3 1 9 64.3% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 674 337 227 11 99 22.1% Grand Total: 753 384 229 11 129 24.6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2049 1103 289 0 657 37.3% Defense Attorneys 8880 5065 774 0 3041 37.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 12 7 1 0 4 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 441 266 30 0 145 35.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1346 701 191 0 454 39.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 12752 7150 1292 1 4309 37.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 277 159 90 15 13 7.0% Witness 4435 2510 1368 182 375 12.2% Other 549 334 156 20 39 9.9% Law Enforcement 3638 2574 457 92 515 16.2% Defendant 24165 11842 9981 329 2013 14.2% Civil Litigant 4982 2497 1744 118 623 19.2% Witness 1544 856 331 44 313 25.8% Other 78 50 20 2 6 10.3% Jurors 11310 5027 1133 268 4882 48.0% Employees, including Interpreters 666 182 95 12 377 66.0% Probation Officers 415 109 97 5 204 64.2% Total Non-attorneys 52059 26140 15472 1087 9360 25.6% Grand Total: 64811 33290 16764 1088 13669 28.4% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4309 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 17% 5% 1% 1% 25% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.41 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 5% 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 24% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 12% 6% 4% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 18% 10% 6% 5% 23% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 17% 7% 3% 2% 30% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 17% 9% 4% 4% 1% 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 20% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 22% 9% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 16% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4309 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 81% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 9360 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.56 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.60 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.53 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.53 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.57 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 66% 20% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.49 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 4% 2% 2% 13% 3.59 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 17% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.51 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 12% 4% 2% 3% 18% 3.53 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 9360 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 12% Competely neutral 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.15 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 12% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.14 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 92% Total Not Retain 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% Undecided or Don't Know 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% Total Not Retain 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 31 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 32 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 33 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 34 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 35 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
• 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 LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO 81648 Dear Judge Noble: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble September 24, 2009 Page 2 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 ext 1, 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 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 55)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 5 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 40% 40% 0% 0% 0% 20% 3.50 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 60% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.68 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 60% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.60 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 40% 0% 0% 0% 20% 3.50 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.75 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.66 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.80 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.80 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.80 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.80 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.74 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Sample Size = 5 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 50% 30% Completely neutral 50% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 0% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 100% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 0% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 86% Total Not Retain 0% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 100% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 0% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 0% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 0% 7% Total Retain 100% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 5% Total Not Retain 0% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.74 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.68 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.50 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.80 proceedings. 3.40 3.60 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.80 3.35 3.66 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.80 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.60 3.15 3.50 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.75 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 3.80 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.80 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.80 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges J 2u00d9 Ignteeri mL Jauduicirali Pee rfAorm. aNncoe Sburlveey 4 ## Page 8 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.80 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.80 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 3.80 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.80 in a neutral manner. 3.20 3.80 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 3.80 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.80 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.80 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.80 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 50% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 100% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 0% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges 0% Total Retain 100% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 0% 14% 7% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 100% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 0% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 0% Judge Noble Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 100% 81% Undecided 0% 5% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 0% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3300)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 30 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 4% 4% 7% 0% 3.32 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 72% 10% 3% 0% 14% 0% 3.28 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 67% 19% 0% 0% 15% 0% 3.22 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 64% 14% 4% 0% 18% 0% 3.07 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.22 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 59% 17% 14% 3% 7% 0% 3.17 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 66% 17% 0% 3% 14% 0% 3.17 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 36% 14% 4% 4% 7% 36% 3.06 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 59% 17% 3% 3% 10% 7% 3.19 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.15 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 54% 25% 7% 0% 11% 4% 3.15 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 69% 21% 3% 0% 7% 0% 3.45 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 69% 21% 0% 0% 0% 10% 3.77 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.46 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 61% 25% 4% 0% 4% 7% 3.50 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 11% 4% 0% 4% 7% 3.65 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 22% 4% 0% 7% 15% 3.30 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 61% 29% 0% 0% 4% 7% 3.54 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 59% 28% 3% 0% 3% 7% 3.48 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 61% 11% 7% 0% 11% 11% 3.24 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 50% 4% 4% 0% 11% 32% 3.21 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 11% 0% 0% 19% 15% 3.00 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.15 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Sample Size = 30 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 18% 14% Competely neutral 82% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.59 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 0% 16% Competely neutral 87% 73% Lenient sentencing total 14% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.33 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 14% 7% Total Retain 82% 90% Total Not Retain 18% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 0% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 14% 6% Total Retain 82% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 0% 9% Total Not Retain 18% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.30 Overall Average Grade 3.49 3.22 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.32 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.28 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.22 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.07 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 3.15 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.17 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.17 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.06 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.19 or her case. 3.52 3.46 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.15 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.45 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.77 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges J 20u09d Ingteerim L Juadiuciarl iPeer foArm.a nNceo Sburvleey 10 ## Page 14 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.49 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.50 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.65 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.30 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.54 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.48 little wasted time. 3.43 3.15 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.24 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.21 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.00 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.59 Laurie A. Noble 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.33 Laurie A. Noble 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 71% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges Total Retain 82% 90% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 18% 10% 3% 14% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 71% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 0% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Noble Judges Total Retain 82% 82% 4% Undecided 0% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 18% 9% 14% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 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 were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Noble. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names 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. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: 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. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney 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 & 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 Noble is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Defense Attorneys 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 7 6 0 0 1 14.3% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Total Attorneys 15 10 0 0 5 33.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 186 118 49 2 17 12.4% Civil Litigant 33 20 3 0 10 33.3% Jurors 6 3 0 0 3 50.0% Total Non-attorneys 225 141 52 2 30 17.3% Grand Total: 240 151 52 2 35 18.6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 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 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. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not 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 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. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 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 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 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 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO 81648 Dear Judge Noble: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 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, and second 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 five 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 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. The fourth 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Laurie A. Noble March 30, 2010 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 Attorneys assigned Judge Laurie A. Noble an overall average grade1 of 3.61, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Noble an overall average grade of 3.45 resulting in a combined grade of 3.53. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. 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 Noble Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.53 3.61 3.45 Sample Size - 11 77 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Noble’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Noble Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.36 3.57 3.58 3.33 3.41 3.69 3.39 3.73 3.46 Sample Size - - - 3 2 6 29 10 38 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 County judges who were appointed between 2007 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 county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. 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 Noble’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Noble Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.68 3.44 Percent of Sample 13% 87% Sample Size 10 67 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Noble’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county 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 LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 11 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 27% 55% 0% 0% 0% 18% 3.33 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 64% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.64 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 36% 55% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.27 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 27% 0% 0% 0% 9% 3.70 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.49 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 27% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.55 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 55% 27% 18% 0% 0% 0% 3.36 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 27% 55% 0% 0% 0% 18% 3.33 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 63% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.63 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.47 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 75% 13% 0% 0% 0% 13% 3.86 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.84 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 18% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.64 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.82 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 18% 0% 9% 0% 0% 3.55 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 82% 9% 0% 0% 0% 9% 3.90 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.73 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 64% 27% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3.55 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 45% 55% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.45 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 73% 18% 0% 0% 0% 9% 3.80 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.60 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.61 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Sample Size = 11 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 40% 29% Completely neutral 60% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% 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 89% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 0% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 11% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 89% 87% Total Not Retain 11% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 80% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 0% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 10% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 10% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 7% Total Retain 80% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 10% 5% Total Not Retain 10% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.61 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.49 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.33 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.64 proceedings. 3.43 3.27 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.70 3.37 3.47 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.55 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.36 3.13 3.33 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.63 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 3.84 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.82 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.86 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges J 2u01d0 gJuedic iLal Paeurforrmiean cAe S. uNrveoy Rbepleort 6 ## Page 10 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.73 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.64 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 3.82 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.55 in a neutral manner. 3.23 3.90 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.60 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.55 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.45 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.80 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 40% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 60% Completely Neutral 48% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain 71% 0% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges 11% Total Retain 89% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 11% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain 67% 0% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 10% Judge Noble Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 80% 82% Undecided or DK 10% 5% 10% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 10% 13% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Sample Size = 77 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 65% 21% 9% 1% 3% 0% 3.45 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 16% 4% 0% 7% 0% 3.50 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 15% 4% 4% 7% 0% 3.38 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 67% 15% 4% 1% 12% 1% 3.24 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.39 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 66% 20% 9% 3% 3% 0% 3.43 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 15% 3% 4% 7% 0% 3.41 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 11% 4% 5% 4% 23% 3.33 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 67% 16% 5% 1% 5% 5% 3.45 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.41 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 67% 19% 5% 0% 7% 3% 3.42 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 3% 0% 3.58 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 73% 19% 3% 0% 1% 4% 3.69 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.56 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 55% 25% 13% 1% 1% 4% 3.36 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 19% 3% 0% 1% 3% 3.69 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 15% 6% 0% 4% 14% 3.50 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 64% 19% 8% 0% 1% 8% 3.56 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 60% 28% 8% 0% 1% 3% 3.49 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 68% 15% 9% 0% 4% 4% 3.49 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 55% 7% 8% 1% 5% 23% 3.37 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 10% 5% 1% 10% 10% 3.30 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.39 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.45 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Laurie A. Noble Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Sample Size = 77 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 14% 14% Competely neutral 80% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 4% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.24 0.14 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 12% 13% Competely neutral 76% 74% Lenient sentencing total 11% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.17 0.11 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 78% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 6% Total Retain 85% 91% Total Not Retain 15% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 7% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 6% Total Retain 81% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 9% Total Not Retain 14% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.45 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.39 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.45 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.50 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.38 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.24 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.41 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.43 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.41 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.33 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.45 or her case. 3.55 3.56 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.42 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.58 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.69 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges J 2u01d0 Jgudeici aLl Paeruforrmiaen cAe S.u rNveyo Rbeploert 12 ## Page 16 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 3.36 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.69 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.50 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.56 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.49 little wasted time. 3.45 3.39 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.37 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.30 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.24 Laurie A. Noble 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.17 Laurie A. Noble 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Laurie A. Noble All County Judges Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 78% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Noble Judges Total Retain 85% 91% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 15% 9% 3% 12% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 6% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Noble Judges Total Retain 81% 83% 3% Undecided 6% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 14% 9% 11% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Laurie A. Noble All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 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 of 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 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 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 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 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, 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 county 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 county 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 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 county 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 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 19 ## Page 23 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 20 ## Page 24 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 21 ## Page 25 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 Noble 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 county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge Laurie A. Noble 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 6 5 0 0 1 16.7% Defense Attorneys 37 29 0 0 8 21.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Total Attorneys 47 36 0 0 11 23.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 526 317 157 3 49 13.3% Civil Litigant 80 49 15 0 16 24.6% Witness 3 1 2 0 0 0.0% Jurors 24 11 2 1 10 45.5% Employees 8 3 2 1 2 33.3% Total Non-attorneys 641 381 178 5 77 16.6% Grand Total: 688 417 178 5 88 17.3% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 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. None 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 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 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 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 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 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 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## 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
• 2008 cycle
  • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE LLLLaauurriiiee AA.. NNNNoobbllee 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO. 81648 Dear Judge Noble: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2008 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 57,000 people statewide who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 12,400 people responded—3,084 to the attorney survey and 9,317 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. • Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. • Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble April, 30 2008 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, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2211)) ## Page 5 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..55 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 33.55 Management 3.4 3.2 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.5 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.5 3.4 3.5 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.88 1b. Beginning court on time 3.4 3.5 3.6 1c. Allotting appropriate amount 3.4 of time for cases 3.4 3.4 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.5 according to schedule 3.5 3.4 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.1 reach agreement 3.0 3.6 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.5 3.5 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.4 1h. Promptly issuing a decision 3.6 on the case after trial 3.5 3.6 1i. Setting reasonable schedules 3.5 for cases 33.44 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.2 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 LLaaww 3.3 3.0 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.3 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.3 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.2 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 2.9 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.2 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.3 substantive law 3.3 3.3 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.4 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.4 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.4 2j. Making decisions without fear 3.5 ooff bbeeiinngg aappppeeaalleedd 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.7 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.9 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.5 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.7 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 3.8 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.5 politely 33.44 3.8 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.8 4d. Treating participants with 3.5 respect 3.5 3.0 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.6 4f. Being consistent in [his/her] 3.5 behavior 3.5 33.11 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.8 4h. Giving all participants an 3.6 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.6 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.4 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.7 3.4 44kk. TTrreeaattiinngg pprroo ssee ppaarrttiieess ffaaiirrllyy 33.66 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.4 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.2 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.3 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 3.7 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.7 5e. Providing prompt access to 3.4 the court in emergency matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Noble is toward the defense or prosecution? Laurie A. Noble 2.1 All County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 12 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Noble's sentences? Laurie A. Noble 0.9 All County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.3 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205)Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 13 Laurie A. Noble AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 90% 80% 77%77% 7744%% 7733%% 70% 65% 61% 60% 50% 40% 29% 30% 28% 20% 13%13% 12%12% 10% 6% 6% 6% 6%6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 54% 57% B 38% 18% 18% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 1% No Grade 24% 23% 21% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 76% 58% 62% B 24% 28% 25% C 0% 9% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 62% 58% 56% B 33% 29% 28% C 5% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 48% 58% 58% B 43% 30% 28% C 10% 6% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 18 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 23% 22% 23% B 31% 18% 17% C 0% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 46% 51% 47% Average 3.4 3.1 3.0 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 62% 67% 66% B 38% 22% 22% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 42% 44% B 29% 19% 21% C 5% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 29% 30% 24% Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 29% 47% 48% B 43% 15% 16% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 29% 32% 29% Average 3.4 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 55% 54% B 43% 26% 26% C 0% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 0% 9% 8% Average 3.6 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 53% 54% B 29% 25% 25% C 29% 9% 9% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% 5% Average 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 55% 56% B 38% 25% 25% C 14% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 15% 20% 27% B 38% 12% 16% C 0% 4% 6% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 46% 60% 47% Average 3.3 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 24% 26% 27% B 19% 17% 18% C 14% 9% 9% D 0% 5% 5% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 43% 40% 38% Average 3.2 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade B B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 51% 54% B 43% 29% 28% C 19% 8% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 40% 57% 60% B 35% 25% 24% C 15% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 58% 58% B 38% 25% 24% C 14% 8% 8% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Noble on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 40% 44% 36% B 35% 20% 18% C 10% 6% 5% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 15% 26% 37% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 55% 54% B 48% 20% 20% C 0% 7% 7% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 12% 14% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 54% 55% B 48% 21% 20% C 5% 5% 6% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 10% 16% 16% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 76% 78% 76% B 19% 18% 18% C 5% 3% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 34 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 86% 71% 71% B 14% 22% 21% C 0% 4% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 81% 77% 76% B 19% 19% 19% C 0% 3% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 36 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 69% 69% B 29% 20% 20% C 0% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 81% 69% 69% B 19% 17% 17% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 4% 3% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24 ## Page 38 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 56% 55% B 24% 22% 22% C 0% 10% 10% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 4% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 81% 68% 68% B 19% 19% 18% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 62% 64% B 10% 21% 20% C 33% 8% 8% D 0% 5% 4% Fail 5% 3% 4% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 64% 64% B 43% 22% 21% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 3% 4% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 28 ## Page 42 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 63% 64% B 14% 21% 20% C 29% 7% 7% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29 ## Page 43 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 70% 70% B 24% 20% 19% C 0% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 5% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 62% 60% 59% B 24% 20% 21% C 10% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 60% 64% B 19% 14% 12% C 14% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 14% 20% 19% Average 3.4 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade B+ B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 55% 51% B 24% 14% 11% C 10% 4% 3% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 24% 24% 33% Average 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 51% 53% B 43% 23% 22% C 10% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 15% 13% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 54% 54% B 29% 25% 26% C 24% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 5% 4% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 52% 56% B 48% 23% 24% C 10% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 12% 9% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 51% 54% B 19% 17% 18% C 5% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 21% 19% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 38% 39% B 10% 14% 14% C 5% 4% 4% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 33% 41% 40% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Noble is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 17% 4% 3% ⇑ 4 17% 5% 4% 3 11% 7% 7% 2 11% 11% 10% 1 6% 15% 14% 0 Neutral 39% 53% 53% -1 0% 3% 4% -2 0% 1% 2% -3 0% 1% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 0% Average 2.1 0.9 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Noble are? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 11% 3% 3% 3 6% 5% 4% 2 6% 8% 8% 1 17% 11% 10% 0 Appropriate 61% 63% 60% -1 0% 4% 4% -2 0% 2% 3% -3 0% 2% 3% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 1% Average 0.9 0.5 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 65% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 29% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 6% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 0% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn--AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5566)) ## Page 56 Laurie A. Noble NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.55 3.6 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.7 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.5 Q5. Overall Application of 3.4 Law 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAverage GGradde Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 57 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.6 33.55 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.7 1b. Treating participants politely 3.5 and with respect 3.6 3.5 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.5 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.6 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.4 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 58 Laurie A. Noble NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.6 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.6 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.6 2b. Treating those involved with 3.5 the case without bias 3.5 3.6 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.5 3.7 2d. Giving each side enough 3.5 time to present his or her case 33.66 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 59 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 3.7 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.7 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.7 hear what's being said 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 60 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.4 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.44 3.4 3.8 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..66 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 3.6 4c. Setting reasonable 3.5 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 3.7 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.6 cases 3.6 3.5 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.5 little wasted time 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 61 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.5 3.5 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.5 3.5 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.5 outside pressure 3.5 3.5 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 33.55 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 62 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Noble is toward the defense or prosecution? Laurie A. Noble 0.1 All County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Defense Prosecution (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 63 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Noble's sentences? Laurie A. Noble 0.1 All County Judges 0.0 All Trial Judges 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 (cid:205) Lenient Harsh (cid:206) Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 64 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 90% 85% 85% 81% 80% 78% 74% 70% 60% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6%6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Noble All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 65 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 66% 69% 73% B 21% 19% 18% C 9% 6% 4% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% 1% Average 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 66 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 80% 72% 76% B 13% 16% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 67 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 73% 70% 74% B 13% 16% 14% C 5% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 1% Average 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 68 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 65% 69% B 13% 18% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 2% 5% 4% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 69 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 72% 75% B 14% 15% 14% C 4% 5% 4% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 70 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 70% 73% B 11% 15% 14% C 2% 4% 4% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 5% 5% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 71 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 66% 52% 49% B 4% 11% 9% C 2% 4% 3% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 21% 27% 35% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 72 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 73% 69% 72% B 9% 15% 14% C 4% 5% 4% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 11% 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 73 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 82% 74% 76% B 5% 14% 14% C 5% 6% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 74 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 74% 76% B 14% 17% 16% C 2% 5% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 75 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 76% 78% B 13% 15% 14% C 2% 5% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 76 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 60% 59% 61% B 20% 23% 24% C 11% 9% 8% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 77 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 75% 75% 77% B 16% 16% 15% C 4% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 78 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 59% 62% B 15% 17% 17% C 6% 6% 5% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 13% 15% 13% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 79 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 73% 67% 71% B 11% 15% 14% C 7% 5% 4% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 0% 3% 2% No Grade 7% 9% 8% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 80 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 64% 66% B 24% 20% 20% C 7% 7% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 81 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 62% 65% B 20% 16% 16% C 7% 7% 5% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 4% 9% 9% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 82 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 61% 57% 59% B 11% 12% 12% C 7% 4% 4% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 17% 21% 20% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 83 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 70% 64% 66% B 11% 14% 14% C 4% 5% 4% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 7% 10% 10% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 84 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Noble is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 2% 1% 3 4% 2% 2% 2 4% 2% 2% 1 0% 5% 5% 0 Neutral 89% 78% 82% -1 4% 3% 3% -2 0% 1% 1% -3 0% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 1% Average 0.1 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 85 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Noble are? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 3% 2% ⇑ 4 4% 2% 2% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 7% 3% 2% 1 4% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 71% 73% 76% -1 11% 5% 5% -2 4% 3% 4% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 2% 1% Average 0.1 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 86 Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 90% 81% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 2% 9% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 2% 3% 2% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 7% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The databases of names and addresses of the people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom were primarily provided by the Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council and the Denver County Courts. These three sources provided name and address data in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Starting in the second quarter of 2007, the data was provided quarterly. Where there were low sample counts, this data was supplemented by contacting district court administrators for additional sample of particular types of potential respondents. The data was then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected— quarterly starting in 2007. Depending on the available number of names and the count of already received surveys for a particular judge, either all or a random sample of names were drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had appeared. Survey: Each person whose name was drawn 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 would be sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent follow-up postcard. If the person did not respond after the follow-up postcard, a second questionnaire and letter were sent and in some instances a second follow-up postcard was sent after the second letter and questionnaire. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney responses, telephone interviews were conducted with attorneys who had not responded to the mailed questionnaires. Over 900 interviews were completed by telephone. 1 ## Page 89 Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2008 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney respondents these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The estimated 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 estimated overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. The true response rates are likely considerably higher than shown because of the relatively high percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed in court. 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 similar table showing the response counts and estimated cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 90 Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 841 306 93 2 440 58.8% Defense Attorneys 1,082 341 102 2 637 65.0% Other Attorneys Crmnl 809 418 27 3 361 46.2% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1,395 312 171 13 899 73.4% Other Attorneys Civil 598 280 53 2 263 48.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role 852 289 77 2 484 62.5% Total Attorneys 5,577 1,946 523 24 3,084 61.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 8,170 5,431 1,417 34 1,288 19.1% Defendant 13,787 9,091 3,737 25 934 9.3% Victim 295 222 63 2 8 3.4% Witness 1,886 1,342 453 5 86 6.0% Other 5,396 3,532 1,301 43 520 12.7% Civil Litigant 6,552 4,390 1,109 21 1,032 19.0% Witness 46 31 5 0 10 24.4% Other 59 29 15 0 15 34.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 5,065 2,598 1,843 12 612 19.0% Total Non-attorneys 41,256 26,666 9,943 142 4,505 14.4% Others Appellate Judges 26 6 0 0 20 76.9% Jurors 10,214 4,940 460 22 4,792 49.1% Total Other 10,240 4,946 460 22 4,812 49.2% Total 57,073 33,558 10,926 188 12,401 26.9% 3 ## Page 91 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney respondents and Non-attorney respondents. Within the Attorney and Non-attorney section are subsections of graphs displaying average grades for each section of the questionnaire and each question and tables showing the percentage distribution of grades. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all county judges, and all trial judges for which 2008 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.67 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 0.66 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for county judges surveyed in 2008, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2008 survey. 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 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. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not 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. 4 ## Page 92 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 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. 5 ## Page 93 Laurie A. Noble Responses by Type Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Defense Attorneys 7 1 0 0 6 85.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 10 6 0 0 4 40.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 16 8 0 0 8 50.0% Total Attorneys 37 16 0 0 21 43.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Defendant 175 119 37 0 19 13.8% Civil Litigant 66 43 10 0 13 23.2% Non-attorneys, Unknown Role Type 172 107 44 1 20 15.6% Total Non-attorneys 414 269 91 1 53 83.3% Others Jurors 6 3 0 0 3 50.0% Total Others 6 3 0 0 3 50.0% Grand Total: 457 288 91 1 77 21.0% Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 94 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 95 Commission on Judicial Performance 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ _ JUDGE [NAME] 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Last Name]? _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, _ please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have _ 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/NS). _ DK 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge [Last h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name]? i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ DK _ 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 96 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward b. Makings sure all participants understand the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 completely unbiased, circle “0.” c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution d. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in his/her behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Last Name] in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? DK ________________________________________________________ 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even ___________________________________________________________ when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] {Question 3d is asked only regarding district judges.} 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 97 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance 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 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 JUDGE[NAME] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Last Name]? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please understanding for those who appear place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 98 DK Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Last Name] c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Last Name] ? e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ 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 9. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ _ _ 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or _ cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or 10. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, _ circle “0.” _ _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward _ Defense Neutral Prosecution _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 _ 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next [Last Name] ? question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands _ down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” _ Sentences Appropriate Sentences _ Too Light Sentences Too Harsh _ 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Back Page
• 2006 cycle
  • 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee LLaauurriiee AA.. NNoobbllee 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 9th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO 81648 Dear Judge Noble: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.6 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.7 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.6 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.8 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.7 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.7 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.5 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.9 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.8 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.6 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.5 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.8 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.7 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.4 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.6 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.6 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 3.5 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.8 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.3 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.6 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.4 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.5 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.8 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 3.4 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.6 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.4 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.8 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.8 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 3.9 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.8 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.7 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.8 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.9 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 3.8 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.8 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.6 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.8 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.8 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 3.8 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.5 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.4 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 3.5 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.6 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 3.6 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 3.6 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.6 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 3.4 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Noble is toward the defense or prosecution? Laurie A. Noble 1 County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Noble's sentences? Laurie A. Noble 0.7 County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 120% 100% 100% 100% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 60% 40% 20% 14%14% 13%13% 5%5% 5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4%4% 4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Noble Including Undecided C o u n ty J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 54% 56% B 50% 21% 21% C 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 19% 17% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 88% 53% 56% B 13% 29% 28% C 11% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 52% 51% B 25% 30% 29% C 10% 11% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 54% 53% B 38% 31% 31% C 9% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 17% 28% 27% B 17% 17% 18% C 5% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 67% 47% 43% Average 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 61% 63% B 25% 26% 25% C 8% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 43% 44% B 25% 25% 25% C 7% 8% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 25% 24% 19% Average 3.7 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 48% 48% B 50% 21% 21% C 4% 5% D 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 13% 26% 24% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 52% 50% B 38% 29% 30% C 8% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 8% 6% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 50% 53% B 25% 28% 27% C 13% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 54% 57% B 25% 26% 25% C 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 17% 20% 28% B 33% 13% 15% C 6% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 50% 58% 48% Average 3.3 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 30% 29% B 25% 19% 20% C 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 38% 34% 33% Average 3.6 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 50% 52% B 13% 31% 30% C 25% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 55% 58% B 25% 29% 27% C 13% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 53% 57% B 25% 29% 27% C 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 3% Average 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Noble on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 38% 33% B 25% 23% 20% C 13% 6% 6% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 13% 29% 37% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 51% 53% B 38% 22% 22% C 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 13% 12% 12% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 52% 54% B 25% 23% 22% C 13% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 13% 14% 14% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 72% 73% B 25% 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 88% 71% 71% B 13% 20% 20% C 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 73% 74% B 25% 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 66% 69% B 25% 22% 20% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 88% 69% 70% B 13% 17% 17% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 3.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 58% 59% B 25% 23% 22% C 8% 9% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 66% 69% B 25% 20% 18% C 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 62% 63% B 13% 20% 19% C 13% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 63% 64% B 25% 22% 21% C 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 62% 63% B 25% 20% 19% C 8% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 68% 69% B 25% 20% 19% C 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 58% 59% B 25% 24% 23% C 13% 8% 8% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 60% 63% B 25% 16% 15% C 13% 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 13% 16% 16% Average 3.4 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 50% 56% 52% B 13% 15% 13% C 13% 4% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 25% 21% 28% Average 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 48% 52% B 38% 25% 23% C 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 12% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 51% 53% B 13% 28% 27% C 13% 9% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% Average 3.6 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 49% 53% B 13% 28% 26% C 13% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 7% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 50% 53% B 13% 22% 21% C 13% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 17% 15% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 38% 39% 41% B 13% 16% 16% C 13% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 38% 38% 36% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Noble is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 14% 4% 3% 4 5% 5% 3 7% 7% 2 14% 12% 11% 1 19% 18% 71% 47% 47% -1 3% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 1.0 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Noble are? Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 17% 3% 4% 3 5% 5% 2 8% 9% 1 15% 15% 83% 58% 55% -1 2% 3% -2 2% 3% -3 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average 0.7 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 100% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.7 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.7 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.5 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Laurie A. Noble County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.6 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.6 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 3.6 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 3.8 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.7 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.6 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.6 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 3.7 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 3.8 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.7 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.7 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.5 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 3.8 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 3.7 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 3.8 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.6 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 3.4 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 3.6 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Laurie A. Noble County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Noble is toward the defense or prosecution? Laurie A. Noble 0.1 County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Noble's sentences? Laurie A. Noble 0.2 County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 93% 93% 90% 82% 79% 80% 75% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7%7% 6%6% 6% 3%3% 3%3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Noble S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 66% 65% 69% B 25% 23% 20% C 3% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 69% 72% B 9% 18% 17% C 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 6% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 66% 70% B 19% 19% 17% C 6% 5% D 3% 4% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 62% 66% B 10% 20% 18% C 7% 6% D 3% 4% 3% Fail 5% 5% No Grade 6% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 68% 71% B 13% 17% 16% C 6% 5% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 81% 66% 69% B 9% 17% 16% C 6% 5% D 4% 3% Fail 6% 5% 4% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 51% 49% B 3% 13% 11% C 5% 4% D 3% 2% Fail 6% 4% 4% No Grade 19% 25% 30% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 65% 68% B 6% 17% 16% C 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 13% 6% 5% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 84% 70% 73% B 6% 18% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 71% 74% B 16% 19% 18% C 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 1% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 78% 73% 75% B 9% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 6% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 65% 52% 55% B 19% 26% 26% C 6% 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 4% 3% Average 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 74% 69% 72% B 13% 20% 18% C 3% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 10% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 65% 56% 58% B 19% 20% 19% C 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 13% 13% 12% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 63% 67% B 13% 19% 17% C 6% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 6% 7% 7% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 59% 61% B 19% 23% 23% C 3% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 59% 62% B 29% 19% 18% C 7% 6% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 7% 7% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 55% 58% B 16% 16% 14% C 3% 5% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 16% 17% 17% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Noble on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 71% 60% 64% B 16% 18% 16% C 6% 5% D 3% 3% Fail 6% 5% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 8% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Noble is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 3% 2% 4 2% 1% 3 6% 3% 2% 2 3% 3% 1 6% 5% 89% 75% 78% -1 6% 3% 3% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 1% 1% -5 2% 2% Average 0.1 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Noble are? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 4% 3% 4 6% 2% 2% 3 2% 2% 2 6% 3% 3% 1 6% 4% 4% 71% 69% 71% -1 6% 5% 5% -2 6% 4% 4% -3 2% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 2% 2% Average 0.2 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 Laurie A. Noble Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 93% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 7% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 91 Laurie A. Noble Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 3 2 1 0 0 66.7% Attorney For Defendant 13 6 7 0 0 46.2% Sub Total: 16 8 8 0 0 50.0% Defendant 143 13 92 37 1 12.4% Plaintiff 26 8 14 4 0 36.4% Employee 7 5 0 2 0 100.0% Juror 6 3 3 0 0 50.0% Other 22 2 15 5 0 11.8% Parole Officers 1 1 0 0 0 100.0% Sub Total: 205 32 124 48 1 20.4% Grand Total: 221 40 132 48 1 23.1% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ DK _____________________________________________________________ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _____________________________________________________________ b. Treating participants in the case politely _____________________________________________________________ and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? b. Maintaining appropriate control over _ proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ d. Being prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? DK _ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A _ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ b. Willing to make decision without regard to _ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
• 2002 cycle
  • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble City/County Municipal Bldg. 209 East Main Rangely, CO 81648 Dear Judge Noble: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Laurie A. Noble Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Noble on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 64% 65% B 40% 22% 21% C 20% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Noble on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 64% 61% B 20% 20% 22% C 40% 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Noble on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 55% 48% B 20% 17% 14% C 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 20% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 67% 63% B 20% 15% 12% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 20% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 69% 66% B 20% 16% 14% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 20% 8% 12% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 70% 66% B 20% 14% 13% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 20% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 66% 65% B 20% 15% 13% C 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 20% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Noble on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 60% 60% B 20% 18% 17% C 20% 9% 8% D 6% 5% Fail 20% 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 2.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 58% 51% B 20% 14% 11% C 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 20% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Noble on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 56% 59% B 20% 15% 12% C 6% 4% D 20% 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 20% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Noble on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 20% 29% 37% B 22% 23% C 20% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 60% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.0 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Noble on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 51% 54% B 20% 30% 28% C 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 20% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Noble on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 53% 54% B 27% 26% C 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 20% 6% 7% Average Grade 4.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade A B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Noble on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 62% 64% B 21% 21% C 40% 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Noble on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 57% 57% B 20% 22% 22% C 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 20% 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 3.0 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Noble on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 47% 46% B 27% 27% C 11% 11% D 20% 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 8% 8% Average Grade 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Noble on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 51% 54% B 27% 28% C 20% 11% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Noble on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 53% 54% B 24% 25% C 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 20% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Noble on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 56% 58% B 25% 23% C 20% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Noble on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 80% 48% 49% B 18% 18% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 20% 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Noble on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 35% 33% B 14% 13% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 40% 43% 45% Average Grade 4.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Noble on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 20% 47% 53% B 40% 28% 25% C 12% 9% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 40% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Noble on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 48% 49% B 24% 25% C 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 40% 16% 13% Average Grade 4.0 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade A B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Noble on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 40% 44% B 30% 29% C 20% 13% 12% D 6% 5% Fail 20% 4% 4% No Grade 20% 6% 6% Average Grade 2.5 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Noble on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 49% 50% B 21% 20% C 20% 9% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 20% 4% 3% No Grade 20% 14% 15% Average Grade 2.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Laurie A. Noble Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 80% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 20% 11% 11% No opinion 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Noble on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 65% 67% B 23% 20% 19% C 10% 7% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Noble on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 43% 49% 47% B 23% 16% 15% C 8% 6% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 18% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 63% 65% B 15% 15% 14% C 5% 4% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 18% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 65% 67% B 13% 16% 16% C 12% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 7% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 64% 67% B 10% 16% 16% C 18% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 64% 66% B 17% 16% 15% C 13% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Noble on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 63% 65% B 18% 16% 16% C 13% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 13% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 8% 7% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Noble on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 45% 43% B 15% 13% 12% C 13% 5% 4% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 12% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Noble on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 60% 63% B 20% 16% 16% C 13% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 18% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Noble on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 68% 70% B 30% 20% 19% C 5% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Noble on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 67% 69% B 23% 19% 18% C 12% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Noble on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 69% 72% B 25% 17% 16% C 8% 6% 5% D 7% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Noble on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 64% 66% B 20% 18% 17% C 13% 6% 5% D 12% 3% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Noble on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 55% 56% B 35% 23% 22% C 7% 9% 8% D 7% 2% 3% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 2% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Noble on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 55% 57% B 30% 23% 23% C 10% 9% 9% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 2% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Noble on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 61% 64% B 25% 19% 18% C 12% 7% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Noble on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 60% 62% B 19% 17% 16% C 13% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 13% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 10% 11% Average Grade 2.9 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Noble on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 48% 64% 67% B 27% 17% 16% C 13% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.2 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Noble on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 60% 62% B 26% 19% 18% C 13% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Noble on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 53% 55% B 22% 15% 14% C 8% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 7% 3% 3% No Grade 13% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Laurie A. Noble Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Noble be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Noble Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 67% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 15% 9% 8% No opinion 18% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Laurie A. Noble Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 3 3 100.0% Attorney For Defendant Attorney for Plaintiff 2 2 100.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type 2 1 1 Sub Total: 7 5 1 1 83.3% Law Enforcement 7 5 1 1 83.3% Social Services Caseworker Employee 2 1 1 50.0% Defendant 138 39 64 29 6 37.9% Plaintiff 13 7 2 4 77.8% Juror Victim 1 1 100.0% Other 22 7 7 5 3 50.0% Sub Total: 183 60 75 38 10 44.4% Total: 190 65 76 39 10 46.1% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 9

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

• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1998 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1994 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026