Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez

Evaluation history

• 2024 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 73.4% yes

  28,226 yes · 10,226 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2024Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2024 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez in a 9-0 vote and one recusal, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, based on standardized judicial performance criteria. The Commission observed that Judge Olguin-Fresquez is patient, compassionate, introspective, and possesses a desire to learn. She maintains a calm, steady demeanor on the bench, even in difficult situations. Judge Olguin-Fresquez reflects that she “strive[s] to always be a positive and trustworthy representative of the judicial system.” She identified this year at the District Court level as a year of growth, working toward becoming more proficient in new areas of law. Her District Court docket comprises approximately 7% civil litigation, 49% domestic relations, 10% juvenile, 11% mental health, 19% criminal, 1% misdemeanor, and 2% traffic cases. The Commission encourages Judge Olguin-Fresquez to continue expanding her knowledge base in domestic relations and civil matters. The Commission suggests Judge Olguin-Fresquez remain cognizant of long-term effects of her orders, especially within family law/domestic relations cases. The Commission hopes her recent legal writing training translates to producing written orders that support her verbal orders providing prompt, thorough, and clear application of the law to the parties appearing before her. This will provide greater stability for parties already struggling with civility and reduce legal financial burdens and issues for family litigants. The Commission continues to suggest she take advantage of local and Colorado-wide professional development opportunities; professionally engage with the local bar; and leverage technology for courtroom accessibility, efficiency, and time management. The Commission conducted a personal interview with the Judge, reviewed opinions she wrote, observed her in court, and considered survey results provided by 20 attorneys and 29 non- attorneys, which was a relatively small sample. Judge Olguin-Fresquez received consistently positive reviews in her surveys from attorneys and non-attorneys, with lower marks from non- attorneys. The partial year-to-year trend showed a slight decline in overall score, which may be attributed to the smaller survey sample size this year. Management of her docket was rated at 3.7 out of 4 for Attorney responses. The most consistent constructive feedback provided in the surveys reflect a desire for more education in family law and its associated complexities, clear direction regarding case management and scheduling, and ensuring parties are provided a fair opportunity to be heard. The Commission previously made certain training and resource recommendations that the Commission felt were not pursued by Judge Olguin-Fresquez. Her Recovery Court uses best practices to strive for sobriety for the participants, setting a model for all other problem-solving courts.
• 2020 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Eagle · Eagle

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 82.8% yes

  18,567 yes · 3,865 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) agrees that Eagle County Court Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS based on the following judicial performance criteria: Integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Olguin-Fresquez presides over traffic cases, misdemeanors, felonies, County Court civil cases and Small Claims cases.  Based on the Commission’s overall evaluation, Judge Olguin-Fresquez has demonstrated she meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories.  Judge Olguin-Fresquez received consistently positive reviews in her surveys from attorneys and non-attorneys.  Judge Olguin-Fresquez is quick to acknowledge that case management is an area that needs attention, and she appears to be constantly searching for ways to improve her case management and docket flow.  The Commission concludes that Judge Olguin-Fresquez is working diligently to address case management issues. The Commission conducted a personal interview with the Judge, reviewed opinions she wrote, observed her in court, looked at a case management report, interviewed the Public Defender, District Attorney, and the Chief Judge, and considered surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys in 2019-2020.  Twenty-eight attorneys and 2 non- attorneys completed the survey.  Of attorneys who completed the survey, 85% said Judge Olguin-Fresquez does meet performance standards, 12% said does not meet performance standards and the remainder had no opinion.  Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 100% said Judge Olguin-Fresquez does meet performance standards.  Judge Olguin-Fresquez is held in high regard by the attorneys and non- attorneys who appear before her.  She is proud to serve, truly enjoys her work and strives to improve her performance by participating in continuing education and keeping current with changes in the laws.  She frequently attends continuing legal education programs like the annual Judicial Conference, the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, the annual Colorado Collaborative Justice Conference, and other online trainings.  The Commission finds her writing and decisions easy to read, concise, and exceptionally well written.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 73.3% yes

  3,543 yes · 1,289 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 Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance in a 9-0 vote recommends that Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez BE RETAINED.  There was one member absent.   Judge Olguin-Fresquez was appointed to the Clear Creek County Court in the 5th Judicial District on May 5, 2006. Judge Olguin-Fresquez is a Colorado native who graduated from the University of Colorado, Boulder with a degree in Sociology and a Colorado Elementary Teaching Certificate. She taught K-2 for three years before attending Tulane University School of Law were she received her law degree.  Prior to her appointment to the bench she was Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Colorado Fifth Judicial District. The Commission conducted a personal interview with the Judge, reviewed opinions she wrote, observed her in court, looked at a case management report, interviewed the Public Defender, District Attorney, law enforcement and the Chief Judge, and considered surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys in 2015- 2016. Of attorneys who completed the survey, 94% recommended retention and 6% did not make a recommendation on retention. Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 88% recommended retention, 8% not to retain, and 4% made no recommendation. Judge Olguin-Fresquez is held in high regard by the Commission, as well as the attorneys and non-attorneys that appear before her. She truly enjoys her work and strives to improve her performance by participating in continuing education and keeping current with changes in the laws. She frequently attends continuing legal education programs on civil law issues because they comprise a smaller part of her caseload with fewer trials than in her larger criminal docket.   Judge Fresquez anticipates presiding over future problem solving courts in the District as well as connecting with the Clear Creek County School District to address ongoing issues related to school and community safety. The Commission finds her writing and decisions easy to read, concise, and exceptionally well written. Judge Olguin-Fresquez is keenly aware of the Victims Rights Amendment and makes every effort to make sure victims are aware of proceedings. Overall, her survey marks were high and reflect her commitment to justice. She explains her rulings in language more easily understood by non-attorney participants and makes every effort to make both plaintiffs and defendants feel they are being treated fairly.
• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report 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 Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez BE RETAINED with one member absent. Judge Olguin-Fresquez grew up in Littleton, Colorado, and received her undergraduate degree from University of Colorado Boulder. After teaching elementary school for three years, Judge Olguin-Fresquez received her law degree from Tulane University Law School. Her legal career began as an unpaid intern, and then a Deputy District Attorney for the Fifth Judicial District, working in Eagle, Summit, and Clear Creek Counties. She was appointed County Judge for Clear Creek County in 2006. Because of the caseload in Clear Creek County, Judge Olguin-Fresquez’s hours are expected to be reduced so that she works 60% of full time. Judge Olguin-Fresquez served for eight years on the Georgetown Community School Board, is active in her local church, and participates in other community activities that will benefit children. Judge Olguin-Fresquez is held in high regard by the Commission, as well as the attorneys and non-attorneys that appear before her. She truly enjoys her work and strives to continue her education by participating in training, and keeping current on any changes to laws. Judge Olguin-Fresquez feels it is important for her to frequently attend training to keep up with civil law issues because that is a smaller part of her caseload. She also anticipates participating in future problem solving courts in the Fifth Judicial District as well as connecting with the Clear Creek County School District to address ongoing issues related to school and community safety. The Commission found her writing and decisions easy to read, concise, and exceptionally well written. Judge Olguin-Fresquez is keenly aware of the Victims Rights Amendment and makes every effort to make sure victims are aware of proceedings. Overall, her survey marks were high and reflect her commitment to justice. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 83% recommended to retain, 9% 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. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 85% recommended to retain, 6% not to retain, and 8% were undecided or didn't have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 94% recommended to retain and 6% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2008 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Clear Creek · Clear Creek

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 74.7% yes

  3,394 yes · 1,151 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 Fifth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez BE RETAINED. Judge Olguin-Fresquez was appointed as Clear Creek County Court judge in May 2006. Judge Olguin-Fresquez left her position as the chief deputy district attorney for the Fifth Judicial District, Colorado, after serving as a criminal prosecutor in the Fifth Judicial District for approximately seven years. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Olguin-Fresquez from attorneys and non-attorneys, as well as a written self evaluation completed by Judge Olguin-Fresquez. A personal interview of Judge Olguin-Fresquez was conducted by the Commission, and members of the Commission observed Judge Olguin-Fresquez in the courtroom during several proceedings. The Commission is highly impressed with Judge Olguin-Fresquez’s performance and abilities after only a relatively short period of time on the bench. She is fair and unbiased, open-minded and understanding, and intelligent and professional. She treats people with compassion and respect and works very hard to make sure that everyone appearing in front of her fully understands the proceedings. She is consistent in her rulings, reflecting the needs of the community with a fair application of the law and sound legal reasoning. With more experience and opportunities for learning, she should improve her skills in handling civil matters, assisting civil litigants in resolving their disputes more effectively and efficiently. She generally demonstrates excellent docket management, giving all parties an opportunity to be heard, allotting adequate time to handle matters before her, yet keeps things moving along. Judge Olguin-Fresquez is both professional and approachable, bringing a sense of dignity and respect to the bench and a more positive experience in the courtroom for those who appear before her. Questionnaires received by the Commission from both attorneys and non-attorneys that have appeared in her courtroom uniformly rate Judge Olguin-Fresquez high overall, and above average in the areas of application of the law, demeanor, diligence, and fairness. 77% of attorneys responding to the questionnaires strongly recommend retention of Judge Olguin-Fresquez, with 85% of responding non-attorneys sharing this strong recommendation.

Surveys & reports

• 2024 cycle
  • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report District C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 3 Performance Scores . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor . .10 Diligence . .11 Fairness . .12 Survey of Appellate Judges . .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . .14 Methodology and How to Read Results . .14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .17 Methodology and How to Read Results . .17 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .18 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 87 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 87 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez All District Judges Judge Olguin- All District Judges Fresquez Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 90% 81% 82% 80% 75% 60% 40% 20% 14% 15% 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% Judge Olguin-Fresquez All District Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys Judge All Judge All Olguin- District Olguin- District Fresquez J udges F resquez J udges Yes, meets performance 90% 81% 75% 82% standards No, does not meet 5% 14% 15% 14% performance standards No opinion 5% 5% 10% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.4 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.2 Fairness 3.3 Judge Olguin-Fresquez All District Judges Judge All District Olguin- Judges Fresquez Case Management 3.5 3.4 Application and Knowledge 3.2 3.3 of Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.2 3.3 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 48 22% 56% 27 Non-Attorneys 74 - - 60 *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Olguin-Fresquez received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.6 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- District Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.6 58 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 73 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.6 65 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.6 72 cases 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- District Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.1 3.3 3.6 2.9 69 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 23 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 20 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 23 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.0 3.3 N/A 3.0 47 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible outside 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 44 pressure 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- District Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.3 69 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 18 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 47 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 47 being said 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.6 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- District Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.2 69 dignity Treating participants with 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.3 68 respect Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 3.0 3.4 N/A 3.0 45 those who appear before him/her 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.3 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- District Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 21 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 15 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 17 and being prepared for cases Beginning court on time. 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 44 Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 46 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 N/A 3.5 44 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 44 Managing court proceedings so 3.4 3.4 N/A 3.4 45 that there is little wasted time 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- District Number of Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.0 3.4 N/A 3.0 47 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.2 3.3 N/A 3.2 46 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 31 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 43 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 66 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 20 to both sides. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Olguin-Fresquez 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Olguin-Fresquez enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin- District Judges Number of Fresquez Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.4 3 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney an d Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 87 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 87 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total, 7,151 surveys were completed with 10,495 more responses where the attorney indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating them. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%. In addition to emailed invitations, attorneys could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total, 5,463 surveys were completed with 2,466 more responses where the respondent indicated they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23rd and January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitation attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. To help reduce the administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or f or judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 3,427 1,864 N/A select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2022 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 15 ## Page 16 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on 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. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Olguin-Fresquez to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 11th, 2023. Reminders were sent on January 19th a nd January 25th 2 023. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 220 48 27 56% Staff - 9 9 - Others 749 64 50 78% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 74 60 - Total Respondents - 122 87 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 18
  • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge R achel J. Olguin-Fresquez 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 Case Management . . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . . 8 Communications. . 9 Demeanor. . 10 Diligence. . 11 Fairness. . 12 Survey of Appellate Judges. . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 14 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - District Judge Survey by Appellate Judges. . 20 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 20 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 49 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 49 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 320 20 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 20 Non-attorney email Invite 447 25 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 4 Citizen Feedback - 0 Juror Survey - 0 Total Non-Attorneys - 29 Total N/A 49 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.0 2.9 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall Judge Olguin- Number of Responses Fresquez Overall Overall Grade 2.9 49 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Non- Non- Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Attorneys Yes, meets performance 84% 50% 16 13 standards No, does not meet performance 11% 39% 2 10 standards No opinion 5% 12% 1 3 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Case Management 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 2.5 Communications 3.1 Diligence 3.0 Demeanor 2.9 Fairness 2.8 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score Judge Olguin- Number of Fresquez Responses Score Case Management 3.1 47 Application and Knowledge of Law 2.5 48 Communications 3.1 48 Diligence 3.0 44 Demeanor 2.9 47 Fairness 2.8 45 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 2.9 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after 3.2 3.6 2.9 37 trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.2 3.5 3.1 45 Promptly rules on pre-trial motions. 2.9 3.5 2.5 40 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 3.1 3.7 2.6 45 Provides an alternative to in-person hearings 3.5 3.7 3.3 39 when appropriate. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.5 Attorneys 3.2 Non-Attorneys 2.1 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 2.6 3.3 2.1 48 Bases decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.2 3.2 N/A 19 Issues consistent decisions when the 3.4 3.4 N/A 17 circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law. 2.9 2.9 N/A 17 Consistently applies laws and rules. 3.4 3.4 N/A 16 Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a 3.1 3.1 N/A 18 decision. * Gives reasons for rulings. 2.1 N/A 2.1 29 Willing to make decisions without regard to 2.0 N/A 2.0 29 possible outside pressure. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.1 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 2.8 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Makes sure all participants understand the 3.1 3.6 2.8 48 proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide 3.0 3.0 N/A 17 an explanation for the decision. * Provides written communications that are clear, 3.3 3.3 N/A 19 thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings. 3.7 3.7 N/A 19 Uses language that everyone can understand. 3.1 N/A 3.1 28 Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.0 N/A 3.0 28 can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed. 2.3 N/A 2.3 28 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.9 Attorneys 3.5 Non-Attorneys 2.4 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.0 3.7 2.4 47 Treats participants with respect. 3.0 3.6 2.6 47 Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom. * 3.7 3.7 N/A 17 Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully 3.0 3.0 N/A 20 in the courtroom. * Maintains a professional demeanor in the 3.7 3.7 N/A 20 courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human 2.3 N/A 2.3 26 understanding for those who appear in court. * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 3.0 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 2.6 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant 3.1 3.1 N/A 17 law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 3.8 3.8 N/A 16 consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is 3.5 3.5 N/A 18 prepared for cases. Begins court on time. 3.1 N/A 3.1 26 Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. 3.0 N/A 3.0 26 Sets reasonable schedules for cases. 2.7 N/A 2.7 24 Is prepared for cases 2.1 N/A 2.1 25 Manages court proceedings so there is little 2.3 N/A 2.3 25 wasted time. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Overall 2.8 Attorneys 3.4 Non-Attorneys 2.3 Non- Number of Overall Attorneys Attorneys Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard. 2.3 N/A 2.3 26 Treats those involved in the case without bias. 2.3 N/A 2.3 25 Treats people fairly who represent themselves. 2.5 N/A 2.5 20 Gives each side enough time to present their 2.5 N/A 2.5 24 case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner. 3.6 3.6 N/A 19 Is fair and impartial to both sides. 3.5 3.5 N/A 18 Appears to decide the outcome of the case 2.9 2.9 N/A 17 before all evidence. * Unnecessarily restricts a party's presentation. * 3.3 3.3 N/A 16 * Since this represents negative behavior, the score was reversed. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Olguin-Fresquez 8 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Olguin-Fresquez enough to evaluate their performance. 4.0 3.6 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall Judge Olguin-Fresquez Number of Responses Overall Overall performance as a judge 3.6 8 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 49 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 49 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 14 ## Page 15 The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Aspects of Invitation Method Invitations Sent Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select) 2497 793 Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 15 ## Page 16 C. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 16 ## Page 17 Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 17 ## Page 18 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 18 ## Page 19 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 19 ## Page 20 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Di strict Judge Survey by Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates Invitations were sent via email to all 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 8 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Olguin-Fresquez to evaluate their performance. B. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco® survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16, 2024. Reminders were sent on January 22 and January 29, 2024. C. Questions Due to the considerable number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A through F, with A being Excellent and F being Fail. To reduce bias in the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order. D. Analysis and Reporting For analysis, letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and F = 0. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average is reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question; that is, the percentage of respondents who assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. E. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 20
• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 2019 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 . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Olguin- All County Judges Fresquez Overall Grade 3.5 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 86% 81% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20% 13% 10% 5% 4% 0% Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys Judge All Judge All Olguin- County Olguin- County Fresquez Judges Fresquez Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 81% 80% 86% standards No, does not meet 0% 13% 20% 10% performance standards No opinion 0% 5% 0% 4% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 Case Management 3.4 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Diligence 3.5 3.5 Demeanor 3.5 3.3 Fairness 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge All County Olguin- Judges Fresquez Case 3.7 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.3 3.4 Law Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.5 Demeanor 3.5 3.5 Fairness 3.3 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 14 52% 71% 10 Non- 17 3% 88% 15 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Olguin-Fresquez received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.7 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.7 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys Judge Judge Judge County Olguin- Olguin- Olguin- Number of Judges Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Responses Overall Non- Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.5 3.6 N/A 10 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.4 3.9 N/A 10 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.8 3.4 3.8 N/A 9 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 10 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge Judge County Olguin- Olguin- Olguin- Number of Judges Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Responses Overall Non- Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.2 23 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 10 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 4 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 10 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 10 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 14 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 12 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.6 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge County Olguin- Olguin- Olguin- Number of Judges Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Responses Overall Non- Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.4 24 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 9 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.6 3.7 N/A 3.6 15 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 15 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.8 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge County Olguin- Olguin- Olguin- Number of Judges Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Responses Overall Non- Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.5 24 Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.6 4 3.3 24 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.3 24 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 15 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge Judge County Olguin- Olguin- Olguin- Number of Judges Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Responses Overall Non- Score Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 9 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.5 23 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.8 3.5 3.8 N/A 8 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 15 Maintaining appropriate control 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 15 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.1 3.6 N/A 3.1 14 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 11 ## Page 12 Judge Judge Judge County Olguin- Olguin- Olguin- Number of Judges Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Responses Overall Non- Score Attorneys Attorneys Managing court proceedings so 3.2 3.5 N/A 3.2 15 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.3 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Number of Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 15 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 15 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.5 N/A 3.3 12 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.3 3.6 N/A 3.3 15 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 25 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 25 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 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 38% 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 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 141,174 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual 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 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 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 June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 14 ## Page 15 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. 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 November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. 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 was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 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. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 15 ## Page 16 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 27 14 0 10 71% Law Enforcement 2 0 0 0 - Litigant 751 9 125 8 89% Juror 23 5 5 4 80% Others 7 3 0 3 100% Total Non-Attorneys 783 17 130 15 88% Total Respondents 810 31 130 25 81% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 17
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    3.5

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    85%

    40 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    100%

    2 respondents
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 2020 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 . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 14 Methodology and How to Read Results . 14 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 17 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Olguin- All County Judges Fresquez Overall Grade 3.5 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 94% 85% 83% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 13% 4% 5% 4% 3% 0% Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys Judge All Judge All Olguin- County Olguin- County Fresquez Judges Fresquez Judges Yes, meets performance 85% 83% 100% 94% standards No, does not meet 12% 13% 0% 4% performance standards No opinion 4% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.5 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.6 Demeanor 3.4 4.0 Fairness 3.8 Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge All County Olguin- Judges Fresquez Case 3.5 3.5 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.4 3.3 Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.6 3.4 Fairness 4.0 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 40 34% 70% 28 Non-Attorneys 2 50% 100% 2 In addition to the responses above, Judge Olguin-Fresquez received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 25 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.0 29 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 25 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.0 28 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.4 County Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 4 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.4 3.4 3.3 4 29 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 27 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 23 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.4 3.1 3.4 N/A 27 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 26 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.7 N/A 4 2 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.7 N/A 4 2 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Overall 3.5 County Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.5 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 29 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 25 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.5 3.8 N/A 3.5 2 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.6 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of 3.7 3.5 3.6 4.0 29 dignity Treating participants with respect 3.6 3.5 3.6 4.0 29 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.6 3.3 3.6 4.0 29 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 those who appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 3.6 County Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys 3.6 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 3.8 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 11 ## Page 12 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Judge Olguin- Fresquez Number of Fresquez Judges Fresquez Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 25 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 23 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 24 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 2 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Score 4.0 County Judges Overall 3.8 Judge Olguin-Fresquez Attorneys Judge Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- Judge Olguin- County Number of Fresquez Fresquez Fresquez Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.8 N/A 4.0 2 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 30 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 30 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% 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 29%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% 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 7%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 14 ## Page 15 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A 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 was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 15 ## Page 16 with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 116 40 0 28 70% Staff 4 2 0 2 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 4 2 0 2 100% Total Respondents 120 42 0 30 71% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 17
• 2016 cycle
  • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 5th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Clear Creek County Courthouse P.O. Box 367 5th & Argentine Georgetown, CO 80444 Dear Judge Olguin-Fresquez: 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez received an overall combined average grade of 3.39 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.49, to the overall average grade received from non- attorney respondents, 3.29, 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 Olguin-Fresquez Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.39 3.49 3.29 Sample Size -- 56 75 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 Olguin- Fresquez’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 Olguin-Fresquez Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2011 3.58 3.58 18 3.58 38 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.23 3.45 38 3.00 37 Overall 3.39 3.49 56 3.29 75 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 Olguin-Fresquez’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 Olguin-Fresquez Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.76 23 31% 3.09 52 69% 3.81 3.27 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez (Sample Size 56) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Sample Size = 56 A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- Judges* Fresquez 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 54% 18% 0% 0% 0% 28% 3.75 3.54 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 14% 10% 0% 0% 2% 3.65 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 56% 22% 4% 2% 0% 16% 3.57 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 20% 8% 0% 0% 10% 3.60 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.64 3.45 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 26% 4% 6% 0% 0% 3.48 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 66% 12% 14% 6% 0% 2% 3.41 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 12% 16% 2% 2% 30% 3.17 3.00 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 58% 25% 8% 0% 0% 10% 3.56 3.31 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.41 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 76% 18% 4% 0% 2% 0% 3.66 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 48% 28% 2% 2% 2% 18% 3.44 3.34 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.55 3.43 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 12% 8% 4% 2% 0% 3.52 3.42 4b. Treating participants with respect. 76% 14% 4% 4% 2% 0% 3.58 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 64% 16% 8% 6% 4% 2% 3.33 3.18 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 22% 6% 8% 0% 6% 3.38 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.45 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 24% 14% 2% 0% 4% 3.40 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 40% 32% 8% 2% 0% 18% 3.34 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 4% 2% 0% 26% 3.57 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 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 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Olguin-Fresquez Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 35% 30% Completely neutral 48% 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 53% 53% Recommend retain 25% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 9% Recommend not retain 9% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 78% 77% Neither 9% 9% Total Not Retain 12% 14% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.49 Overall Average Grade 3.32 3.64 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.45 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.75 case after trial. 3.54 3.65 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.47 3.57 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.43 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.60 3.37 3.41 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.48 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.30 3.41 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.00 3.56 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.31 when circumstances are similar. 3.55 Q3. Overall Communication 3.43 3.66 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.52 the proceedings. 3.44 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.45 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.52 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.42 3.58 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.33 neutral manner. 3.18 3.38 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.44 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.40 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.34 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.57 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. 10% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 35% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 48% 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% Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained or not retained in office? 53% Strongly recommend retain 53% 25% Recommend retain 24% 9% Judge Olguin- All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Fresquez Judges* Total Retain 78% 77% 9% Neither 9% 9% Recommend not retain 7% Total Not Retain 12% 14% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez (Sample Size 75) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Sample Size = 75 A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- Judges* Fresquez 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 4% 4% 4% 0% 3.43 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 12% 4% 4% 7% 0% 3.41 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 68% 16% 5% 3% 8% 0% 3.32 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 59% 15% 11% 4% 11% 1% 3.08 3.42 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.31 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 68% 19% 1% 4% 8% 0% 3.34 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 61% 16% 8% 5% 9% 0% 3.15 3.45 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 14% 4% 4% 11% 14% 3.11 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 54% 19% 8% 3% 7% 9% 3.22 3.54 Overall Fairness 3.21 3.50 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 68% 17% 7% 0% 8% 0% 3.37 3.58 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 72% 17% 1% 3% 7% 0% 3.45 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 71% 20% 7% 1% 1% 0% 3.57 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.46 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 56% 24% 11% 1% 5% 3% 3.27 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 71% 16% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.51 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 20% 5% 3% 4% 12% 3.38 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 58% 20% 8% 0% 7% 7% 3.32 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 55% 23% 9% 7% 3% 3% 3.25 3.48 time. Overall Diligence 3.35 3.54 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 53% 19% 7% 8% 7% 5% 3.10 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 57% 8% 9% 5% 7% 14% 3.19 3.45 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 57% 15% 8% 7% 8% 5% 3.13 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.14 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Olguin- Judges* Fresquez 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 25% 13% Competely neutral 74% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 2% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.72 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 18% 13% Competely neutral 70% 74% Lenient sentencing total 11% 13% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.44 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 53% 70% Recommend retain 8% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 19% 7% Recommend not retain 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 7% Total Retain 61% 84% Neither 19% 7% Total Not Retain 19% 10% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.29 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.31 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.43 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.41 3.54 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.32 manner. 3.48 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.08 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.21 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.50 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.34 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.15 case without bias. 3.45 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.11 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.22 their case. 3.54 3.46 Q3. Overall Communications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.37 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.45 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.57 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.35 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.54 3.27 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.48 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.51 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.38 3.54 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.32 3.58 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.25 little wasted time. 3.48 3.14 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.10 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.19 possible outside pressure. 3.45 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.13 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.72 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 0.44 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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. Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained or not retained in office? 53% Strongly recommend retain 70% 8% Recommend retain 14% 19% Neither retain nor not retain Judge Olguin- All Cnty 7% Fresquez Judges* 8% Total Retain 61% 84% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 19% 7% Total Not Retain 19% 10% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 2 1 0 2 50.0% Defense Attorneys 160 58 60 0 42 42.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Other Attorneys Civil 38 8 19 0 11 57.9% Total Attorneys 205 68 81 0 56 45.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 302 136 134 5 27 16.1% Civil Litigant 126 50 63 1 12 19.0% Witness 11 3 3 1 4 50.0% Jurors 54 23 7 1 23 48.9% Employees, including Interpreters 9 5 0 0 4 44.4% Probation Officers 5 0 0 0 5 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 507 217 207 8 75 25.0% Grand Total: 712 285 288 8 131 30.9% 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez, 64 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 43 agreed they had worked with Judge Olguin-Fresquez enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 43 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 3.57 Attorneys 3.70 Total Non-Attorneys 3.48 Juror 3.93 Non-Attorney Other* 3.32 Table 1 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.57 3.70 3.48 3.93 3.32 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 91% Attorneys 94% Total Non-Attorneys 88% Juror 100% Non-Attorney Other 85% Table 2 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 91% 94% 88% 100% 85% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.75 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.62 3.37 3.83 3.23 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.76 3.62 4.00 3.47 Diligence 3.62 3.49 3.80 3.38 Demeanor 3.73 3.46 4.00 3.27 Fairness N/A 3.45 4.00 3.25 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 73 4 17 36% 32% Total Non- 551 210 26 11% 33% Attorneys Staff 7 0 2 43% 33% Jurors 54 0 7 15% 13% Other Non- 490 210 17 10% 39% 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Olguin-Fresquez, 25 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 17 agreed they had worked with Judge Olguin-Fresquez enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 17 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Fresquez Total Retain 94% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 3 100% 75% 80% 67% 60% 40% 19% 20% 12% 6% 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 Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.75 3.36 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.67 3.46 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.71 3.47 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.76 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.77 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 6 Case Management Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 17 Fresquez Judges Promptly issuing a decision on the 59% 18% -- -- -- 24% 3.77 3.61 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 82% 12% 6% -- -- -- 3.76 3.47 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 59% 24% -- -- -- 18% 3.71 3.46 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 65% 18% 6% -- -- 12% 3.67 3.36 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.75 3.45 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.62 3.24 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.56 3.16 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.53 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.32 are similar 3.57 3.25 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.71 3.38 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.69 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 17 Fresquez Judges Being able to identify and analyze 65% 29% -- -- -- 6% 3.69 3.38 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence and 76% 18% 6% -- -- -- 3.71 3.25 arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 53% 40% -- -- -- 7% 3.57 3.32 similar Being fair and impartial to both 65% 24% 12% -- -- -- 3.53 3.16 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 59% 29% 6% -- -- 6% 3.56 3.24 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.62 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.76 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.33 thorough and well reasoned 3.67 Making sure all participants understand the 3.55 proceedings 3.76 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 8 Communications Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 17 Fresquez Judges Making sure all participants 76% 24% -- -- -- -- 3.76 3.55 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 47% 24% -- -- -- 29% 3.67 3.33 reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.76 3.46 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.73 3.21 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.59 3.39 Treating participants with respect 3.82 3.47 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.76 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 9 Demeanor Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 17 Fresquez Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 76% 24% -- -- -- -- 3.76 3.47 dignity Treating participants with respect 82% 18% -- -- -- -- 3.82 3.39 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 71% 18% 12% -- -- -- 3.59 3.21 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.73 3.36 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.62 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.34 for cases 3.56 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.25 and rules 3.65 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 10 Diligence Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 17 Fresquez Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 65% 35% -- -- -- -- 3.65 3.25 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 59% 29% 6% -- -- 6% 3.56 3.34 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 47% 29% -- -- -- 24% 3.62 3.37 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.62 3.31 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Olguin-Fresquez in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 60% 54% 40% 27% 28% 20% 11% 7% 7% 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 Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez, 39 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 26 agreed they had worked with Judge Olguin-Fresquez enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 26 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Fresquez Total Retain 88% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 8% Figure 10 100% 80% 73% 71% 60% 40% 15% 16% 20% 8% 4% 5% 3% 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 Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.46 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.56 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.29 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.42 3.64 Treating participants with respect 3.46 3.61 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.65 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 12 Demeanor Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Judge All A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 26 Fresquez Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 85% 4% 8% -- 4% -- 3.65 3.61 Treating participants with respect 77% 8% 4% 8% 4% -- 3.46 3.64 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 77% 8% 4% 4% 8% -- 3.42 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 72% 8% -- 4% 12% 4% 3.29 3.56 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.46 3.59 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.45 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.63 case 3.52 3.56 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.00 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.52 3.64 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 13 Fairness Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 26 Fresquez Judges Giving participants an opportunity 81% 8% 4% -- 8% -- 3.54 3.64 to be heard Treating those involved in the 77% 8% 4% -- 8% 4% 3.52 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 38% 8% 8% 4% 8% 35% 3.00 3.56 represent themselves Giving each side enough time to 80% 8% 4% -- 8% -- 3.52 3.63 present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.45 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.62 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.71 hear what’s being said 3.77 3.68 Using language that everyone can understand 3.54 Making sure all participants understand the 3.66 proceedings 3.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 14 Communications Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 26 Fresquez Judges Making sure all participants 77% 15% -- -- 8% -- 3.54 3.66 understand the proceedings Using language that everyone can 85% 4% -- 4% 8% -- 3.54 3.68 understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 85% 8% 8% -- -- -- 3.77 3.71 being said Communications Overall Average 3.62 3.68 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.49 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.56 wasted time 3.62 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.30 3.69 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.76 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.46 3.54 Beginning court on time 3.46 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 15 Diligence Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 26 Fresquez Judges Beginning court on time 69% 15% 12% -- 4% -- 3.46 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” 81% 8% -- -- 12% -- 3.46 3.65 and being prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control 85% 4% 4% 4% -- 4% 3.76 3.69 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 64% 16% -- -- 12% 8% 3.30 3.63 cases Managing court proceedings so 73% 12% 4% -- 4% 8% 3.62 3.56 that there is little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.49 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.37 3.54 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.28 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.54 outside pressure 3.61 3.56 Giving reasons for rulings 3.37 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All County Judges Judge Olguin-Fresquez Table 16 Application of Law Judge Rachel J. Olguin- Judge All Fresquez A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- County Number of Responses: 25 Fresquez Judges Giving reasons for rulings 69% 12% -- -- 12% 8% 3.37 3.56 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 69% 12% 4% -- 4% 12% 3.61 3.54 pressure Being able to identify and analyze 69% 12% -- 4% 12% 4% 3.28 3.54 relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.37 3.55 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Olguin-Fresquez is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Olguin- Fresquez is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 79% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 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 Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez are. If you feel Judge Olguin-Fresquez generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Table 17 100% 80% 71% 63% 60% 40% 20% 14% 14% 5% 2% 2% 2% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 25
• 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 RRaacchheell JJ.. OOllgguuiinn--FFrreessqquueezz 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Clear Creek County Courthouse P.O. Box 367 5th & Argentine Georgetown, CO 80444 Dear Judge Olguin-Fresquez: 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. Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 3.40, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.58, Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.49. Judge Olguin-Fresquez Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.49 3.40 3.58 Sample Size - 64 160 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Olguin-Fresquez from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Olguin-Fresquez’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Olguin-Fresquez Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.50 3.49 11 3.51 23 2008 3.57 3.38 7 3.76 37 2009 3.35 3.39 22 3.30 42 2010 3.54 3.38 24 3.70 58 Overall 3.49 3.40 64 3.58 160 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 Olguin-Fresquez’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 Olguin-Fresquez Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2007 3.95 2 9% 3.48 21 91% 3.82 3.30 2008 3.76 28 76% 3.77 9 24% 3.82 3.26 2009 3.74 14 33% 3.08 28 67% 3.83 3.22 2010 3.67 19 33% 3.71 39 67% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.73 63 39% 3.48 97 61% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Olguin-Fresquez’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 RRaacchheell JJ.. OOllgguuiinn--FFrreessqquueezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Sample Size = 64 A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- Judges Fresquez 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 44% 22% 3% 2% 0% 30% 3.53 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 66% 23% 6% 0% 2% 3% 3.56 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 44% 17% 6% 0% 0% 33% 3.56 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 44% 25% 9% 3% 0% 19% 3.35 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.50 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 50% 25% 6% 8% 2% 9% 3.26 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 45% 19% 11% 6% 2% 17% 3.21 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 19% 6% 6% 2% 28% 3.22 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 15% 7% 7% 0% 22% 3.39 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.27 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 73% 13% 11% 2% 0% 2% 3.60 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 45% 19% 8% 8% 2% 19% 3.21 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 16% 11% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 77% 13% 5% 3% 2% 2% 3.62 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 63% 19% 8% 6% 2% 3% 3.39 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 27% 8% 5% 2% 6% 3.33 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.46 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 3% 6% 3.23 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 16% 5% 5% 2% 23% 3.41 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 48% 16% 3% 6% 0% 27% 3.45 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.36 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.40 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Olguin- Judges Sample Size = 64 Fresquez Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 40% 28% Completely neutral 51% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 3% 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 74% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 18% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 7% Total Retain 92% 88% Total Not Retain 9% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 84% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.40 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.50 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.53 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.56 proceedings. 3.44 3.56 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.35 3.39 3.27 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.26 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.21 3.16 3.22 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.39 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.41 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.60 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.21 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.46 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.51 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.62 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.39 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.33 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.36 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.23 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.41 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.45 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. 6% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 40% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 51% Completely Neutral 50% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 3% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 71% 18% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Judge Olguin- All Cnty Fresquez Judges 2% Total Retain 92% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 9% 13% 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 68% Strongly recommend retain 68% 16% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge Olguin- All Cnty 8% Fresquez Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 84% 84% Undecided or DK 8% 5% 2% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 8% 12% 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee RRaacchheell JJ.. OOllgguuiinn--FFrreessqquueezz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 116600)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Sample Size = 160 A B C D Fail DK/NA Olguin- Judges Fresquez 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 16% 5% 2% 1% 2% 3.63 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 76% 12% 3% 4% 4% 1% 3.54 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 19% 5% 2% 4% 1% 3.47 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.58 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 76% 16% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.64 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 9% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3.54 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 9% 0% 1% 3% 34% 3.61 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 3% 1% 4% 7% 3.61 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.60 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 19% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3.61 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 22% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3.69 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 17% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3.72 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 55% 29% 8% 2% 3% 3% 3.35 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 79% 13% 6% 1% 0% 1% 3.73 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 19% 3% 2% 3% 13% 3.52 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 4% 2% 0% 11% 3.68 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 18% 9% 1% 2% 3% 3.51 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 7% 4% 3% 5% 3.45 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 62% 10% 1% 3% 3% 21% 3.59 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 66% 13% 6% 2% 5% 9% 3.46 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Rachel J. All County Olguin- Judges Sample Size = 160 Fresquez 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 17% 12% Competely neutral 74% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 10% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.16 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 71% 77% Lenient sentencing total 17% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.03 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 86% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 92% 92% Total Not Retain 7% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 80% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 5% Total Retain 85% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 8% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.58 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.58 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.63 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.66 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.54 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.47 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.60 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.64 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.54 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.61 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.61 or her case. 3.59 3.67 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.61 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.69 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.56 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.35 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.73 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.52 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.68 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.51 little wasted time. 3.50 3.50 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.45 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.59 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.46 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.16 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.03 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges Judge Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Judge Olguin- All Cnty Fresquez Judges Total Retain 92% 92% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 7% 8% 2% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 8% Judge Olguin- All Cnty Undecided 8% Fresquez Judges Total Retain 85% 85% 1% Undecided 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel J. Olguin-Fresquez 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 23 14 0 0 9 39.1% Defense Attorneys 180 130 4 0 46 26.1% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 11 7 0 0 4 36.4% Other Attorneys Civil 21 16 0 0 5 23.8% Total Attorneys 235 167 4 0 64 27.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 53 22 20 2 9 27.3% Law Enforcement 45 12 2 0 31 72.1% Defendant 687 383 252 6 46 10.6% Civil Litigant 58 20 28 2 8 26.7% Witness 14 5 6 0 3 37.5% Jurors 136 63 10 0 63 50.0% Employees 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 994 505 319 10 160 23.7% Grand Total: 1229 672 323 10 224 24.7% 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
• 2008 cycle
  • 2008 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State off Colorado LLogo COOMMISSIOON ON JUUDICIALL PERFORRMANCEE RRaaccheell OOlgguuiinn--Frreessqqueezz 22008 Juudicial PPerformmance Suurvey ## Page 2 April 30, 2008 The Honorable Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Clear Creek County Courthouse 5th & Argentine Georgetown, CO. 80444 Dear Judge Olguin-Fresquez: 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 33..66 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 33.55 Management 3.4 3.5 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.7 Communications 3.7 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.5 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 AAvveerraaggee GGrraaddee Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 6 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.5 3.4 3.6 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 33.44 1b. Beginning court on time 3.4 3.5 3.7 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 2.7 1e. [Civil only] Assisting parties to 3.1 reach agreement 3.0 3.7 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.5 3.4 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.0 1h. Promptly issuing a decision 3.6 on the case after trial 3.5 3.4 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 7 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.5 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 LLaaww 3.3 3.5 2a. Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 and arguments 3.3 3.4 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 2.5 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.3 2d. Willing to reconsider error in 2.9 ffaacctt oorr llaaww 2.9 3.4 2e. Having knowledge of relevant 3.3 substantive law 3.3 3.7 2f. Having knowledge of rules of 3.4 pprroocceedduurree aanndd eevviiddeennccee 3.4 3.5 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 3.3 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the 3.4 circumstances are similar 3.3 3.5 2i. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 criticism 3.4 3.7 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 8 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.7 3.7 3.9 3a. Speaking clearly 3.7 3.7 3.7 3b. Making sure all participants 3.6 understand the proceedings 3.6 3.7 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 9 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.6 4a. Giving proceedings a sense 3.5 of dignity 3.5 3.7 4b. Treating everyone involved 3.5 politely 33.44 3.4 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.7 4d. Treating participants with 3.5 respect 3.5 3.5 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 33.77 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.4 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.4 3.7 4h. Giving all participants an 3.6 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.5 44ii. CCoonnssiisstteennttllyy aappppllyyiinngg llaawwss 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.8 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.7 3.6 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 10 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Diligence 3.5 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.4 55aa. MMaakkiinngg ttoouugghh ddeecciissiioonnss wwhheenn 3.4 necessary 3.4 3.4 5b. Using good judgment in apppplication of relevant law and 3.3 rules 3.3 3.5 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared 3.4 for [[his/her]] cases 3.4 3.8 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicated and time consuming 33.55 3.5 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 11 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Olguin- Fresquez is toward the defense or prosecution? Rachel Olgguin-Fresqquez 0.7 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Olguin-Fresquez's sentences? Rachel Olguin-Fresquez 0.7 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Retention Recommendation 110000%% 90% 80% 77%77% 7744%% 7744%% 7733%% 70% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 2266%% 2255%% 20% 13%13% 12%12% 10% 6% 6%6% 5% 5% 5%5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 14 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 24% 54% 57% B 19% 18% 18% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 1% No Grade 57% 23% 21% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 15 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 48% 58% 62% B 33% 28% 25% C 14% 9% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 1% 2% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 16 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 58% 56% B 33% 29% 28% C 0% 7% 8% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 4% 4% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 17 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 58% 58% B 38% 30% 28% C 5% 6% 7% D 5% 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 9% 22% 23% B 0% 18% 17% C 18% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 73% 51% 47% Average 2.7 3.1 3.0 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 19 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 67% 66% B 33% 22% 22% C 0% 6% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 20 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 29% 42% 44% B 14% 19% 21% C 10% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 48% 30% 24% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 21 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 0% 47% 48% B 24% 15% 16% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 76% 32% 29% Average 3.0 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 22 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 55% 54% B 43% 26% 26% C 0% 6% 8% D 0% 2% 3% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 24% 9% 8% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 23 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 53% 54% B 24% 25% 25% C 5% 9% 9% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 5% 5% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 24 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 55% 56% B 24% 25% 25% C 19% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 25 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 11% 20% 27% B 0% 12% 16% C 0% 4% 6% D 11% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 78% 60% 47% Average 2.5 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 26 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 14% 26% 27% B 10% 17% 18% C 5% 9% 9% D 0% 5% 5% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 71% 40% 38% Average 3.3 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade B B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 27 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 51% 54% B 43% 29% 28% C 5% 8% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 28 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 57% 60% B 29% 25% 24% C 0% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 14% 4% 4% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 29 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 58% 58% B 19% 25% 24% C 14% 8% 8% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 30 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 40% 44% 36% B 25% 20% 18% C 5% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 25% 26% 37% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 31 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 55% 54% B 19% 20% 20% C 0% 7% 7% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 33% 12% 14% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 32 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 54% 55% B 14% 21% 20% C 5% 5% 6% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 29% 16% 16% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 33 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 90% 78% 76% B 10% 18% 18% C 0% 3% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% 0% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 34 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 71% 71% 71% B 24% 22% 21% C 5% 4% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 35 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 77% 76% B 33% 19% 19% C 0% 3% 3% 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 22 ## Page 36 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 69% 69% B 29% 20% 20% C 5% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 23 ## Page 37 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 81% 69% 69% B 14% 17% 17% C 0% 6% 7% D 5% 4% 3% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 24 ## Page 38 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 65% 56% 55% B 15% 22% 22% C 15% 10% 10% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 0% 3% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 25 ## Page 39 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 81% 68% 68% B 14% 19% 18% C 0% 6% 7% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 0% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 26 ## Page 40 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 67% 62% 64% B 24% 21% 20% C 5% 8% 8% D 5% 5% 4% Fail 0% 3% 4% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 27 ## Page 41 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 62% 64% 64% B 24% 22% 21% C 10% 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 76% 63% 64% B 10% 21% 20% C 5% 7% 7% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 1% 2% Average 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 29 ## Page 43 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 76% 70% 70% B 14% 20% 19% C 10% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 1% 2% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 30 ## Page 44 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 52% 60% 59% B 38% 20% 21% C 5% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 31 ## Page 45 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 60% 64% B 19% 14% 12% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 24% 20% 19% Average 3.8 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 32 ## Page 46 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 55% 51% B 14% 14% 11% C 5% 4% 3% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 38% 24% 33% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 33 ## Page 47 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 33% 51% 53% B 33% 23% 22% C 5% 7% 7% D 0% 3% 3% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 29% 15% 13% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 34 ## Page 48 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 57% 54% 54% B 14% 25% 26% C 19% 9% 9% D 0% 4% 4% Fail 0% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 5% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 35 ## Page 49 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 48% 52% 56% B 14% 23% 24% C 10% 8% 8% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 29% 12% 9% Average 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 36 ## Page 50 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 43% 51% 54% B 14% 17% 18% C 0% 6% 6% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 43% 21% 19% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 37 ## Page 51 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 38% 38% 39% B 10% 14% 14% C 0% 4% 4% D 5% 2% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 48% 41% 40% Average 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 38 ## Page 52 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Olguin-Fresquez is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 4% 3% ⇑ 4 6% 5% 4% 3 6% 7% 7% 2 6% 11% 10% 1 17% 15% 14% 0 Neutral 67% 53% 53% -1 0% 3% 4% -2 0% 1% 2% -3 0% 1% 2% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 0% Average 0.7 0.9 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 39 ## Page 53 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Olguin-Fresquez are? Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 11% 3% 3% 3 0% 5% 4% 2 11% 8% 8% 1 17% 11% 10% 0 Appropriate 50% 63% 60% -1 11% 4% 4% -2 0% 2% 3% -3 0% 2% 3% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 0% 1% Average 0.7 0.5 0.3 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 40 ## Page 54 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 74% 77% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 26% 13% 13% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 0% 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 1199)) ## Page 56 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.7 Overall Average 3.5 3.6 3.8 QQ11. OOvveerraallll DDeemmeeaannoorr 33.55 3.6 3.7 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 3.7 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 57 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.8 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.5 3.6 33.88 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.9 1b. Treating participants politely 3.5 and with respect 3.6 3.7 1c. Conducting [his/her] 3.5 courtroom in a neutral manner 3.6 3.8 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 58 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez NNoonn-AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy Average Grades: Fairness 3.7 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.5 3.6 3.8 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.6 3.7 2b. Treating those involved with 3.5 the case without bias 3.5 4.0 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 59 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.7 3.6 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 3.8 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 60 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.6 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.5 3.6 3.1 44a. BBegiinniing courtt on ttiime 33.44 3.4 3.8 4b. Maintaining appropriate 33..66 conttroll over proceeddiings 3.7 3.8 4c. Setting reasonable 3.5 sscchheedduulleess ffoorr ccaasseess 3.6 3.8 4d. Being prepared for [his/her] 3.6 cases 3.6 3.8 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 61 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.7 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.5 3.7 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.5 3.6 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.5 outside pressure 3.5 3.7 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 62 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Olguin- Fresquez is toward the defense or prosecution? Rachel Olguin-Fresquez 0.4 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Olguin- Fresquez's sentences? Rachel Olgguin-Fresqquez 0.2 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 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 85% 81% 81%81% 80% 78% 74% 70% 60% 5500%% 40% 30% 20% 13% 13% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6%6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Olguin-Fresquez All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 65 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 84% 69% 73% B 11% 19% 18% C 5% 6% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 1 ## Page 66 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 95% 72% 76% B 0% 16% 14% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 4% 3% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.9 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 2 ## Page 67 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 70% 74% B 5% 16% 14% C 0% 5% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 0% 2% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 3 ## Page 68 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 84% 65% 69% B 5% 18% 17% C 0% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 0% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 4 ## Page 69 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 72% 75% B 5% 15% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 0% 4% 3% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 5 ## Page 70 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 84% 70% 73% B 5% 15% 14% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 5% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 6 ## Page 71 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 52% 49% B 0% 11% 9% C 0% 4% 3% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 4% 3% No Grade 32% 27% 35% Average 4.0 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 7 ## Page 72 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 69% 72% B 5% 15% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 0% 6% 5% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 8 ## Page 73 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 74% 76% B 16% 14% 14% C 11% 6% 5% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 9 ## Page 74 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 79% 74% 76% B 16% 17% 16% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 10 ## Page 75 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 76% 78% B 5% 15% 14% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 1% 1% Average 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 11 ## Page 76 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 47% 59% 61% B 21% 23% 24% C 21% 9% 8% D 0% 3% 2% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.1 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 12 ## Page 77 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 89% 75% 77% B 5% 16% 15% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% 1% No Grade 0% 2% 2% Average 3.8 3.6 3.7 Letter Grade A- B+ A- Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 13 ## Page 78 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 59% 62% B 11% 17% 17% C 5% 6% 5% D 0% 1% 1% Fail 0% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 15% 13% Average 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 14 ## Page 79 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 67% 71% B 11% 15% 14% C 5% 5% 4% D 0% 2% 1% Fail 0% 3% 2% No Grade 16% 9% 8% Average 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 15 ## Page 80 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 83% 64% 66% B 6% 20% 20% C 6% 7% 7% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 0% 3% 2% No Grade 6% 3% 3% Average 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 16 ## Page 81 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 74% 62% 65% B 16% 16% 16% C 0% 7% 5% D 5% 3% 2% Fail 0% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 9% 9% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 17 ## Page 82 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 58% 57% 59% B 5% 12% 12% C 0% 4% 4% D 0% 2% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 32% 21% 20% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 18 ## Page 83 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Olguin-Fresquez on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 A 68% 64% 66% B 11% 14% 14% C 0% 5% 4% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 0% 4% 4% No Grade 16% 10% 10% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 19 ## Page 84 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Olguin-Fresquez is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 7% 2% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 2% 1% 3 0% 2% 2% 2 0% 2% 2% 1 7% 5% 5% 0 Neutral 87% 78% 82% -1 0% 3% 3% -2 0% 1% 1% -3 0% 1% 1% -4 0% 1% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 1% 1% Average 0.4 0.1 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 20 ## Page 85 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Olguin-Fresquez are? Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2008 Judges 2008 5 0% 3% 2% ⇑ 4 0% 2% 2% 3 8% 2% 2% 2 0% 3% 2% 1 0% 3% 3% 0 Appropriate 85% 73% 76% -1 8% 5% 5% -2 0% 3% 4% -3 0% 2% 2% -4 0% 2% 1% ⇓ -5 0% 2% 1% Average 0.2 0.0 0.0 hsraH oT thgiL oT Judicial Performance Survey 2008 Page 21 ## Page 86 Rachel Olguin-Fresquez Non-Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Olguin-Fresquez be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Olguin-Fresquez Judges 2006 Judges 2008 Strongly Recommend 81% 81% 85% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 13% 9% 8% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 0% 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 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 94 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 95 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 96 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 97 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

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

• 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2008 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026