← All judges

Tina L. Olsen

Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson

Meets Standards(Retain)2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2004 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 72.8% yes
    148,138 yes · 55,237 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2004 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2004 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Jefferson County Judge Tina L. Olsen BE RETAINED. Judge Olsen served as a Jefferson County District Court Magistrate from 1987 to 1997. She was appointed to the Jefferson County Court in September 1997. Prior to becoming a magistrate, she served as a deputy district attorney for the First Judicial District. Of the attorneys surveyed, 82% recommended retention, 10% recommended non-retention, and 8% were undecided. Of the non-attorneys surveyed, 80% recommended retention, 9% recommended non-retention, and 10% were undecided. She was rated as average or above average in all categories by attorneys, and well-above average in all categories by non-attorneys. She received high ratings in demeanor, fairness and communication. Some of her strengths were said to be "people skills," respect for all participants, giving everyone a fair opportunity to be heard, and knowledge of the law. Despite her high ratings in the survey, Judge Olsen is committed to improving her judicial skills and courtroom efficiency. She plans to participate in training for conducting settlement conferences in the future. Her commitment to excellence and sincere self-evaluation were impressive to the Commission. Judge Olsen is active in community service. She believes community involvement is important to her judicial role. She is particularly interested in juvenile projects, speaking at schools and juvenile justice facilities. She volunteered to handle truancy cases in addition to her regular caseload. Her positive personal attributes and devotion to high judicial standards make her an excellent judge.
  • 2000 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Jefferson · Jefferson
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 2000 Recommendation: Retain The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Tina L. Olsen BE RETAINED. Judge Olsen was appointed to the Jefferson County Court in September 1997. Prior to her appointment, she served as a Magistrate for ten and one-half years in Jefferson County. Of the attorneys surveyed 68% favored retention, 18% favored non-retention and 15% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys surveyed 82% favored retention, 7% favored non-retention and 11% had no opinion. The attorneys that responded rated her as average to above average in all categories. The primary criticism from attorneys was her control of her staff. The staff's inefficiency and poor work habits caused many time delays and communication problems. Judge Olsen responded to the commission that she would correct the problems. The Commission has concerns about her knowledge and application of the law based on the survey results. Judge Olsen indicated that she has the desire and capacity to continue in her skill development.

Surveys & reports

  • 2004 cycle
    • 2004 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2004 Judicial Performance Survey TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TTiinnaa LL.. OOllsseenn ## Page 2 March 22, 2004 The Honorable Tina L. Olsen County Judge, 1st Judicial District Court Section 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, Co. 80401-6002 Dear Judge Olsen: 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 2004 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 35,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 10,000 people responded—3,683 to the attorney survey and 6,330 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 as required by the recent rule changes) , 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 Tina L. Olsen March 22, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.4 Overall Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.3 3.3 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.2 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.5 3.4 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Tina L. Olsen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 5 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.4 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.3 3.6 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.5 during trial 3.5 3.4 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.4 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.4 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.2 1e. Assisting parties to reach 3.1 agreement 3 3.4 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.4 3.4 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 motions 3.2 3.3 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.4 3.2 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Tina L. Olsen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 6 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.2 3.3 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.2 3.3 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.3 3 2c. Issuing written findings of 3 fact and law 3.1 2.8 2d. Willing to reconsider error 2.9 in fact or law 2.9 3.3 2e. Having knowledge of 3.2 relevant substantive law 3.2 3.3 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.3 of procedure and evidence 3.3 3.3 2g. Being able to identify and 3.3 analyze relevant facts 3.3 2h. Issuing consistent 3.3 sentences when the 3.3 circumstances are similar 3.2 2i. Willing to make decision 3.2 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.3 3.2 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 7 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.7 3a. Speaking clearly 3.5 3.5 3.7 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.7 3c. Using understandable 3.6 language 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 8 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.4 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.4 3.5 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.4 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.4 3.2 4c. Having empathy with the 3.2 parties involved 3.2 3.4 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.4 3.4 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.3 3.5 4f. Being consistent in his/her 3.4 behavior 3.3 4g. Conducting his/her 3.3 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.3 3.4 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.4 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.3 and rules 3.3 3.7 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.5 communications 3.6 3.4 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.4 fairly 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 9 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.2 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.2 3.3 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.3 3.3 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.2 3.2 5c. Doing the necessary "homework" and being 3.3 prepared for his/her cases 3.2 5d. Being willing to handle 3.3 cases on the docket even when they are 3.4 complicatedand time consuming 3.3 3.2 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.4 matters 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 10 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Olsen is toward the defense or prosecution? Tina L. Olsen 1 All County 0.8 Judges All Trial Judges 0.7 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 11 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Olsen's sentences? Tina L. Olsen 0.5 All County 0.5 Judges All Trial Judges 0.4 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 12 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 80% 74% 74% 73% 70% 69% 70% 68% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% 10% 8% 6%6% 6%6%6% 6% 5% 5% 5%5% 4%4% 4%4% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Olsen Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 13 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 51% 51% B 18% 22% 24% C 5% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 30% 19% 17% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 14 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 48% 53% 54% B 40% 30% 29% C 13% 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 4% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 15 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 50% 49% B 38% 31% 30% C 5% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 16 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 47% 52% 50% B 42% 31% 30% C 11% 9% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 17 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 13% 21% 25% B 13% 16% 18% C 6% 8% 10% D 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 69% 51% 41% Average 3.2 3.1 3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 18 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 59% 58% B 30% 27% 27% C 13% 8% 8% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 19 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 41% 39% B 15% 21% 24% C 5% 8% 10% D 3% 3% 4% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 45% 27% 21% Average 3.4 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 20 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 35% 47% 44% B 25% 20% 21% C 8% 6% 7% D 1% 2% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 30% 25% 24% Average 3.3 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 21 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 50% 47% B 33% 29% 30% C 13% 9% 10% D 3% 2% 3% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 8% Average 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 22 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 49% 49% B 38% 27% 27% C 10% 11% 10% D 3% 5% 5% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 8% 6% 6% Average 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 23 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 43% 51% 51% B 40% 27% 27% C 15% 10% 10% D 4% 5% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 6% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 24 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 12% 19% 27% B 9% 11% 17% C 12% 8% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 67% 57% 42% Average 3 3 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 25 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 15% 27% 26% B 26% 19% 20% C 23% 11% 11% D 3% 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 33% 35% 34% Average 2.8 2.9 2.9 Letter Grade B- B- B- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 26 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 41% 47% 46% B 41% 30% 31% C 15% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 6% 5% Average 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 27 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 41% 52% 52% B 44% 28% 29% C 15% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 5% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 28 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 51% 51% 51% B 36% 28% 28% C 8% 9% 10% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 29 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 37% 38% 27% B 23% 23% 17% C 11% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 26% 28% 46% Average 3.3 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 30 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 38% 47% 47% B 33% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 8% D 8% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 15% 15% 17% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 31 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 35% 49% 48% B 30% 23% 22% C 8% 7% 7% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 23% 17% 18% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 32 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Speaking clearly?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 79% 70% 67% B 15% 21% 23% C 5% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 1% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 33 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 74% 66% 64% B 18% 21% 23% C 8% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 34 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Using understandable language?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 74% 69% 67% B 21% 21% 24% C 5% 6% 6% D 1% 1% Fail 0% 0% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 35 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 64% 63% B 33% 24% 23% C 10% 7% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 23 ## Page 36 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 61% 63% B 30% 20% 20% C 10% 9% 8% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 24 ## Page 37 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 45% 51% 51% B 38% 24% 24% C 10% 11% 11% D 3% 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 5% 6% Average 3.2 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 25 ## Page 38 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 62% 62% B 30% 21% 21% C 10% 8% 8% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 26 ## Page 39 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 57% 58% B 33% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 9% D 5% 5% 4% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 27 ## Page 40 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Being consistent in his/her behavior?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 58% 58% B 33% 22% 23% C 10% 9% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 28 ## Page 41 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 50% 57% 59% B 35% 23% 23% C 13% 9% 9% D 3% 5% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 29 ## Page 42 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 53% 61% 62% B 38% 24% 23% C 10% 8% 7% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 30 ## Page 43 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 54% 53% B 28% 24% 24% C 10% 10% 10% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 2% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 31 ## Page 44 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 55% 56% B 15% 19% 17% C 5% 4% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 18% 20% 20% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 32 ## Page 45 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 38% 51% 45% B 20% 18% 15% C 5% 5% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 35% 22% 33% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 33 ## Page 46 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 40% 45% 47% B 30% 26% 25% C 18% 9% 10% D 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 13% 15% 14% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 34 ## Page 47 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 45% 48% 48% B 38% 28% 28% C 10% 11% 11% D 5% 5% 5% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 6% 5% Average 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 35 ## Page 48 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for his/her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 38% 47% 47% B 38% 27% 27% C 18% 10% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 8% 11% 9% Average 3.2 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 36 ## Page 49 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicatedand time consuming?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 33% 48% 47% B 38% 22% 22% C 3% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 25% 17% 17% Average 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 37 ## Page 50 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 30% 38% 37% B 23% 16% 16% C 10% 5% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 35% 37% 37% Average 3.2 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 38 ## Page 51 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Olsen is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 4% 3% 4 3% 3% 3 6% 6% 6% 2 19% 13% 12% 1 31% 18% 16% 38% 49% 49% -1 3% 4% 4% -2 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 1% 1% -5 0% 1% Average 1 0.8 0.7 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 39 ## Page 52 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Olsen are? Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 3% 2% 4 3% 2% 3 3% 5% 5% 2 13% 9% 9% 1 10% 13% 12% 65% 59% 58% -1 6% 4% 5% -2 2% 2% -3 2% 2% -4 0% 1% -5 0% 1% Average 0.5 0.5 0.4 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 40 ## Page 53 Judge Tina L. Olsen Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Olsen be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 74% 73% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 15% 17% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 6% 4% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 6% 6% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 41 ## Page 54 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.5 Overall Average 3.3 3.3 3.5 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.3 3.3 3.5 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.6 Q3. Overall 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.4 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.4 Q5. Overall Application 3.2 of Law 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Tina L. Olsen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 55 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.5 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.2 3.3 3.5 1a. Giving proceedings a 3.3 sense of dignity 3.4 3.6 1b. Treating participants 3.3 politely and with respect 3.4 3.5 1c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 3.2 manner 3.3 3.4 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.1 understanding 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 56 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.5 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.3 3.3 3.4 2a. Giving participants an 3.3 opportunity to be heard 3.4 3.5 2b. Treating those involved 3.2 with the case without bias 3.2 3.5 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.2 represent themselves 3.3 3.6 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.3 case 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Tina L. Olsen All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 57 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.6 Q3. Overall Communications 3.4 3.5 3.6 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.4 proceedings 3.4 3.7 3b. Using language that 3.4 everyone can understand 3.5 3.7 3c. Speaking clearly so 3.5 everyone can hear 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 58 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.3 3.3 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.2 3.6 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.4 4c. Setting reasonable 3.3 schedules for cases 3.3 3.4 4d. Being prepared for his or 3.3 her cases 3.4 3.3 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.3 little wasted time 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen All County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 59 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.2 3.2 3.4 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.2 3.2 3.5 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.2 outside pressure 3.2 3.4 5c. Being able to identify and 3.2 analyze relevant facts 3.2 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tina L. Olsen Average Grade All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 60 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Olsen is toward the defense or prosecution? Tina L. Olsen 0.3 All County 0.2 Judges All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 61 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Olsen's sentences? Tina L. Olsen 0.2 All County 0 Judges All Trial Judges -0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 62 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 80% 80% 74% 72% 71% 70% 67% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 11%11% 11%11% 10%10% 10%10% 10%10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 6% 5% 5% 4% 1% 1% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Olsen Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 63 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 58% 60% B 16% 23% 23% C 6% 9% 8% D 1% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 64 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 61% 63% B 13% 19% 19% C 2% 9% 8% D 2% 5% 4% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 2% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 65 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 76% 59% 61% B 11% 19% 18% C 5% 9% 8% D 5% 4% Fail 6% 5% 5% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 66 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the judge?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 61% 54% 56% B 23% 20% 20% C 5% 10% 9% D 5% 4% Fail 6% 7% 6% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 67 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 71% 60% 62% B 8% 21% 20% C 7% 7% 7% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 6% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 68 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 73% 58% 60% B 11% 19% 18% C 6% 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 6% 7% 7% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 69 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 47% 45% B 11% 15% 14% C 4% 6% 5% D 1% 4% 3% Fail 6% 6% 5% No Grade 15% 23% 29% Average 3.5 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 70 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 70% 57% 59% B 14% 20% 19% C 5% 8% 7% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 7% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 71 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 70% 63% 64% B 19% 20% 19% C 6% 8% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 72 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 77% 63% 64% B 15% 21% 21% C 4% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 73 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 80% 66% 66% B 11% 20% 20% C 4% 7% 7% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 74 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 57% 50% 52% B 19% 25% 25% C 7% 11% 10% D 8% 4% 4% Fail 2% 5% 4% No Grade 6% 5% 5% Average 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 75 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 69% 63% 64% B 17% 22% 21% C 6% 7% 7% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 76 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 53% 48% 51% B 22% 23% 21% C 5% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 16% 15% 14% Average 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 77 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Being prepared for his or her cases?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 63% 56% 58% B 12% 21% 19% C 10% 8% 7% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 4% 3% 4% No Grade 11% 9% 9% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 78 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 53% 54% B 21% 25% 24% C 7% 10% 10% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 10% 5% 5% Average 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 16 ## Page 79 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 58% 52% 54% B 19% 20% 20% C 5% 9% 8% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 2% 6% 5% No Grade 12% 9% 9% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 17 ## Page 80 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 55% 48% 50% B 12% 17% 16% C 6% 7% 7% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 1% 6% 6% No Grade 22% 18% 18% Average 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 18 ## Page 81 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Olsen on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 A 59% 53% 55% B 16% 19% 18% C 4% 8% 7% D 6% 4% 4% Fail 2% 6% 6% No Grade 13% 9% 9% Average 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 19 ## Page 82 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Olsen is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 3% 4% 3% 4 3% 2% 3 2% 2% 2% 2 5% 3% 3% 1 5% 6% 6% 80% 68% 70% -1 2% 4% 4% -2 2% 3% 3% -3 2% 3% 2% -4 1% 2% -5 2% 2% Average 0.3 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 20 ## Page 83 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Olsen are? Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 5 6% 5% 4% 4 3% 2% 3 2% 3% 3% 2 4% 3% 3% 1 6% 4% 4% 62% 60% 62% -1 11% 6% 7% -2 6% 6% 6% -3 2% 5% 5% -4 2% 2% -5 3% 2% Average 0.2 0.0 -0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 21 ## Page 84 Judge Tina L. Olsen Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Olsen be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Olsen Judges 2004 Judges 2004 Strongly Recommend 80% 72% 74% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 10% 11% 11% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 1% 6% 5% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 9% 11% 11% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 22 ## Page 85 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2004. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in November 2004, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2004 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 86 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 719 394 7 69 9 60.6% Attorney For Defendant 2,219 1,040 17 218 24 52.0% Guardian ad Litem 131 79 0 10 1 65.3% Unknown Attorney Type 5,378 2,170 56 751 88 46.9% Attorney Total 8,447 3,683 80 1,048 122 49.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 3,111 916 55 672 3 37.6% Employee 1,739 976 18 224 0 64.4% Defendant 12,171 1,620 148 2,439 27 16.6% Plaintiff 3,617 881 66 500 11 28.3% Juror 4,488 1,632 117 511 15 41.0% Victim 552 83 11 101 2 18.4% Other 1,650 222 25 373 8 17.4% Non-attorney Total 27,328 6,330 440 4,820 66 28.1% Total 35,775 10,013 520 5,868 188 33.5% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 87 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2004, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2004 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 88 Judge Tina L. Olsen Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 10 4 0 1 0 44.4% Attorney For Defendant 76 27 0 7 1 39.1% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type 21 9 0 1 0 45.0% Sub Total: 107 40 0 9 1 40.8% Defendant 162 19 2 29 0 14.3% Plaintiff 53 8 0 3 0 16.0% Law Enforcement 9 7 0 0 0 77.8% Employee 32 17 1 4 0 60.7% Juror 97 32 4 10 0 36.8% Victim Other 24 2 0 5 0 10.5% Sub Total: 377 85 7 51 0 26.1% Grand Total: 484 125 7 60 1 29.5% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 89 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Attorney Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you do 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/NA). DK/ 1. Case Management: A B C D F NA a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 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 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 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 f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decision 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 3. Communications: a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. [District only] Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. 4 3 2 1 0 9 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 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 h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Diligence: a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 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] 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 90 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how biased you think Judge _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ 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. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ 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 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge _ in a case and asked you for advice, what would you say? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _ ? _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 91 Commission on Judicial Performance 2003 Judicial Performance Questionnaire Evaluation of JUDGE _ Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you do 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/NA). DK/ 1. Demeanor: A B C D F NA 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 2. Fairness: 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 3. Communications: 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 4. Diligence: a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5. Application of Law: 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 6. [If you were in Judge _’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 _ is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge _ is completely unbiased, circle “0.” Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Continued on Other Side ## Page 92 7. [If you were in Judge _ ’s courtroom during a criminal case or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge _ are. If you feel Judge _ 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 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge _ as a party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what would you tell your friend about Judge _ ? _ _ _ _ 9. What would you say are Judge _’s strengths? _ _ _ _ 10. And what would you say are Judge _’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge _? _ _ _ _ 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _? _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated.

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