← All judges

Cheryl L. Post

Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

Meets Standards(Retain)2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 76.1% yes
    138,880 yes · 43,659 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Cheryl L. Post BE RETAINED. Judge Cheryl L. Post has a B.A. in History and Secondary Education from Colorado State University, an M.Ed. in Counseling from the University of Colorado in Denver and a law degree from the University of Denver. Judge Post practiced law as a civil litigator with the law firm of Holmes, Roberts & Owen and Kobayashi & Associates in Denver prior to being appointed to the District Court in October 1993. Judge Post currently presides over a juvenile division. The Commission personally interviewed Judge Post and reviewed written evaluations from a random sample of attorneys, court employees, law enforcement personnel, jurors and other constituents who have been involved in proceedings in Judge Post’s courtroom. The overall responses rate Judge Post’s performance very favorable. She rated higher than average in the areas of punctuality; managing the court docket; utilizing the court time efficiently; and making correct legal decisions. The non-attorney surveys scored Judge Post very slightly below average on courtesy toward parties, witnesses and attorneys. The attorneys surveyed rated her higher than average on treating parties equally regardless of race, gender or economic status; fair and impartial toward both sides; treating pro se parties fairly; verbal communications; professional demeanor in the courtroom; courtesy toward pro se parties; being prepared on all court matters; providing quick access to the court in emergency situations; timely ruling on motions; and making decisions without regard to possible criticism. The survey indicated that 87% of attorneys recommended that Judge Post be retained in office, 10% recommended not to retain and 3% had no opinion. The survey of non- attorneys indicated that 86% recommended that Judge Post be retained, 6% recommended not to retain and 8% had no opinion.
  • 1996 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    VotersRetained· 65.7% yes
    103,949 yes · 54,272 no50% needed to retain
    Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Cheryl L. Post BE RETAINED. Judge Cheryl L. Post has a B.A. in History and Secondary Education from Colorado State University, a M.Ed. in Counseling from the University of Colorado in Denver, and a law degree from the University of Denver. Prior to attending law school, she was an educator. Judge Post practiced law as a civil litigator with the law firm of Holme, Roberts & Owen and Kobayashi & Associates in Denver prior to being appointed to the district court in October, 1993. Judge Post currently presides over domestic cases, previously presided over civil cases, and handles some criminal matters. The Attorney evaluations were generally favorable, with 80.8% of the attorney respondents and 90.9% of the juror respondents recommending that Judge Post be retained. She received high scores for appropriate courtroom demeanor, for maintaining courtroom control, and for working diligently and compassionately.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Cheryl L. Post Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Englewood, CO 80112 Dear Judge Post: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Cheryl L. Post Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Post on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 65% 65% B 21% 20% 21% C 9% 6% 7% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 3% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Post on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 60% 61% B 18% 22% 22% C 10% 8% 8% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Post on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 43% 48% B 15% 13% 14% C 1% 4% 6% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 34% 37% 29% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 61% 63% B 7% 11% 12% C 1% 3% 3% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 21% 24% 19% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 65% 66% B 12% 12% 14% C 10% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 14% 12% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 64% 66% B 10% 12% 13% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 15% 18% 15% Average Grade 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 64% 65% B 13% 12% 13% C 6% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 15% 15% 13% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Post on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 61% 60% B 22% 17% 17% C 7% 8% 8% D 7% 4% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 1% 6% 5% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Post on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 47% 51% B 7% 10% 11% C 1% 3% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 34% 38% 31% Average Grade 3.8 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Post on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 61% 59% B 7% 10% 12% C 3% 4% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 21% 23% 21% Average Grade 3.7 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Post on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 42% 37% B 18% 23% 23% C 6% 9% 9% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 28% 21% 27% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Post on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 55% 54% B 24% 27% 28% C 6% 9% 9% D 1% 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Post on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 54% 54% B 16% 25% 26% C 10% 9% 9% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 12% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Post on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 64% 64% B 16% 20% 21% C 3% 6% 7% D 3% 3% 4% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Post on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 57% 57% B 30% 22% 22% C 6% 8% 8% D 1% 4% 5% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 5% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Post on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 45% 46% B 31% 27% 27% C 7% 11% 11% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 3% 9% 8% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Post on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 55% 54% B 24% 28% 28% C 7% 8% 9% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Post on using court time efficiently? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 54% 54% B 21% 26% 25% C 3% 10% 10% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Post on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 75% 59% 58% B 16% 22% 23% C 1% 7% 7% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Post on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 49% 49% B 16% 18% 18% C 9% 7% 7% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 16% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Post on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 40% 32% 33% B 18% 13% 13% C 1% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 40% 46% 45% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Post on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 57% 53% B 25% 24% 25% C 6% 8% 9% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Post on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 49% 49% B 25% 25% 25% C 1% 8% 8% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 12% 11% 13% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Post on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 45% 44% B 28% 29% 29% C 4% 11% 12% D 4% 5% 5% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.4 3.1 3.1 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Post on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 51% 50% B 18% 20% 20% C 4% 8% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 10% 16% 15% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Cheryl L. Post Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Post be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 87% 85% 84% Do not retain in office 10% 10% 11% No opinion 3% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Post on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 68% 67% B 26% 19% 19% C 10% 5% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.4 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Post on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 44% 47% B 16% 14% 15% C 7% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 40% 35% 30% Average Grade 3.3 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 68% 65% B 16% 14% 14% C 4% 3% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% 2% No Grade 11% 13% 14% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 70% 67% B 20% 15% 16% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 8% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 70% 67% B 19% 15% 16% C 4% 4% 5% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 11% 9% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade B+ A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 69% 66% B 18% 15% 15% C 4% 4% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 14% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Post on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 68% 65% B 18% 15% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Post on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 40% 43% B 11% 11% 12% C 2% 3% 4% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 48% 44% 37% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Post on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 58% 66% 63% B 24% 16% 16% C 4% 5% 5% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 8% 9% 11% Average Grade 3.4 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Post on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 72% 70% B 20% 18% 19% C 8% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% 1% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Post on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 71% 69% B 21% 18% 18% C 8% 5% 6% D 1% 1% 2% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Post on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 74% 72% B 16% 15% 16% C 5% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 1% 2% No Grade 4% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Post on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 68% 66% B 22% 16% 17% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Post on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 54% 57% 56% B 24% 21% 22% C 11% 8% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Post on starting court on time? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 50% 59% 57% B 26% 22% 23% C 15% 8% 9% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Post on being prepared for cases? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 66% 64% B 23% 17% 18% C 4% 5% 6% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Post on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 60% 63% 62% B 18% 15% 16% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% 4% No Grade 12% 11% 11% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Post on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 69% 67% B 18% 14% 16% C 4% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Post on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 64% 62% B 23% 17% 18% C 5% 5% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Post on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 57% 55% B 15% 13% 14% C 2% 4% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 27% 22% 22% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Cheryl L. Post Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Post be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All District All Trial Post Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 86% 85% 83% Do not retain in office 6% 7% 8% No opinion 8% 8% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Cheryl L. Post Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 15 8 1 3 3 88.9% Attorney For Defendant 57 35 11 5 6 76.1% Attorney for Plaintiff 21 16 4 1 80.0% Guardian ad Litem 19 8 8 2 1 50.0% Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 112 67 24 11 10 73.6% Law Enforcement 159 27 86 1 45 23.9% Social Services Caseworker 18 9 9 50.0% Employee 14 8 2 2 2 80.0% Defendant 13 3 6 4 33.3% Plaintiff 13 3 5 5 37.5% Juror 118 55 40 7 16 57.9% Victim 60 5 37 12 6 11.9% Other 158 22 86 32 18 20.4% Sub Total: 553 132 271 63 87 32.8% Total: 665 199 295 74 97 40.3% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 18

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