Marla Prudek

Evaluation history

• 2022 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 58.1% yes

  134,035 yes · 96,814 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance voted 5-1 with 4 absent that Judge Marla Prudek MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public Judge Prudek’s docket includes 50% civil, 49% domestic relations and 1% criminal. (Prior to April 2022 she had a 50% criminal docket and no civil.) Judge Prudek is described as smart, prepared, professional, consistent, and fair. She is knowledgeable about the law and applies the law appropriately. Judge Prudek’s overall combined performance score on the 2022 Judicial Performance Survey was 2.8 out of 4.0, lower than the average score of 3.4 for all District Court Judges. 83% of attorneys and 35% of non-attorneys stated that Judge Prudek meets judicial performance standards. In most categories Judge Prudek scored 3.2 or above on a 4.0 scale from attorneys. Her scores from attorneys were generally higher than in the 2016 survey. Judge Prudek’s scores from non-attorneys were lower than the average for all district court judges. Several of the non-attorney comments appear to reflect the decisions she made in domestic relations cases. It is noted that these 2022 non-attorney comments are markedly different from her non-attorney scores in 2016, when she received an overall score of 3.79 out of 4.0 from non-attorneys. She did not have a domestic relations docket when the 2016 survey was conducted. The Commission interviewed Judge Prudek, observed her in Court, and reviewed her self-evaluation, written opinions, and the 2022 survey data. The Commission also spoke with representatives of the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office. In her interview with the Commission Judge Prudek acknowledged the low scores from non-attorneys. She believes they are likely the result of her domestic relations caseload which has a large number of self-represented parties. Judge Prudek takes these scores seriously and intends to regain the high ratings from non-attorneys that she had in the past. She currently explains the process of trial to self-represented parties at the pre-trial conferences. Judge Prudek will issue oral and written rulings in domestic relations cases that provide more clarity as to her fact finding and her reasoning. She will obtain advice on best practices when dealing with self-represented parties from a mentor judge. These steps will help her identify any implicit biases she may have and allow her the time to use language that is clear and written with the perspective of the losing party in mind.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 70.6% yes

  182,456 yes · 76,135 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 Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Marla Prudek BE RETAINED. Judge Prudek was appointed to serve as an El Paso County District Court Judge in November, 2012.  In 2009, she was appointed as a County Court Judge, and prior to that, she was an assistant Attorney General in Washington State, a prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney in Colorado Springs.  She obtained her B.A. degree from Carroll College in Montana in 1982, and graduated from the University of Puget Sound Law School in 1985.  Judge Prudek volunteers with the annual high school mock trial competitions and attends various bar association functions.  Judge Prudek volunteered in Black Forest after the devastating fire because she believes community service is important, and appreciates interacting with people who are not regularly involved with the judicial system. As part of the review process, the Commission interviewed Judge Prudek, reviewed several of her written opinions, and reviewed her survey results. She was also observed in Court while she was presiding over cases.  The survey results contain information about Judge Prudek that was gathered from many sources, including: jurors who appeared before her, people who represented themselves in her courtroom, people with lawyers who had cases in her courtroom, and lawyers who appear before Judge Prudek. The survey results show that 80% of all who completed the survey recommend that Judge Prudek be retained.  Of those results, 92% of non-attorneys recommended that she be retained, 58% of attorneys recommended that she be retained, and 96% of jurors recommended she be retained. Judge Prudek scored higher than average in every category that was rated by the 53 non-attorneys completing the survey.  These categories include: Judge Prudek’s demeanor, fairness, communication, diligence, application of law, neutrality (lack of bias), and fairness in sentencing (for criminal, misdemeanor and traffic cases).  The attorney scores rated Judge Prudek lower than average in these same categories.  However, only 29 attorneys completed the survey.  The combined scores of all participants in the survey result in a score for Judge Prudek of 3.42 out of a scale of 4.  Judge Prudek was, until recently, assigned to handle criminal and civil cases.  Since her background involved primarily criminal cases, the civil cases required her to learn an entirely new area of law.  The Chief Judge recently changed the assignments of the District Court Judges, and Judge Prudek now handles 50% criminal cases and 50% domestic relations cases.  The Commission finds Judge Prudek to be a hard-working Judge who is passionate about her work and her desire to always improve herself.  Her written work is excellent, as is her relationship with members of the public who have appeared before her.  She is motivated to improve the somewhat low survey scores she received from attorneys.
• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 73.7% yes

  161,954 yes · 57,692 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, with a unanimous vote of 9-0, recommends that Judge Marla Prudek BE RETAINED. One commissioner was absent. Judge Prudek obtained a Bachelor of Arts from Carroll College in 1982 and earned her Juris Doctorate from the University of Puget Sound School of Law in 1985. Prior to being appointed as an El Paso County Judge, Judge Prudek was a partner at Gentry and Prudek, LLP, a position she held since January 2005. Her areas of practice were criminal defense with an emphasis in sexual offenses, child abuse, domestic violence, and homicide. From 1987 to 1989 Judge Prudek served as the Deputy District Attorney for El Paso County. Additional experience includes holding the position of Assistant Attorney General in the state of Washington from 1986 to 1987. Community service activities include volunteering as a judge for a mock trial competitions and Teen Court, assisting in AA programs, participating in local bar auxiliary judicial functions, and participating in charity walks for Habitat for Humanity and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Judge Prudek is quoted as saying “I think community service is an excellent way to encourage public confidence in the judicial system.” Judge Prudek was appointed to El Paso County Court in 2009. Her docket consists of 34% misdemeanor, 55% traffic, 8% civil, 1% criminal, 1% small claims, and 1% domestic relations. Judge Prudek has acknowledged because she’s new to the bench she has a lot to learn. It is expected her performance, which is already strong, will improve as she gains more experience on the bench. Overall Judge Prudek’s average grade on a 4-point scale is a 3.36. The areas used to calculate the overall average came from case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and lastly diligence. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 84% recommended to retain, 9% not to retain, and 6% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 90% recommended to retain and 10% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 86% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 11% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 96% recommended to retain and 5% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2022 cycle
  • 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Marla R. Prudek 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 .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 Prudek, 69 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 69 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 3.2 3 2 1 0 Judge Prudek All District Judges Judge Prudek All District Judges Overall Grade 3.2 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 85% 82% 80% 76% 73% 60% 40% 22% 18% 20% 12% 11% 9% 6% 3% 3% 0% Judge Prudek All District Judges Judge Prudek All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Prudek Prudek Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 73% 82% 76% 85% standards No, does not meet 18% 12% 22% 11% performance standards No opinion 9% 6% 3% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.1 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.4 Communications 3.6 3.2 Diligence 3.4 3.2 Demeanor 3.5 3.1 Fairness 3.5 Judge Prudek All District Judges Judge All District Prudek Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.1 3.4 Law Communications 3.4 3.6 Diligence 3.2 3.4 Demeanor 3.2 3.5 Fairness 3.1 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 54 30% 61% 33 Non- 48 4% 75% 36 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Prudek received 1 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 Marla R. Prudek 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.3 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys Judge District Judge Judge Number of Prudek Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 31 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.4 3.4 N/A 33 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.3 3 N/A 28 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 33 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Overall 3.1 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.3 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 2.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Prudek Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3 3.4 3.2 2.8 69 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 33 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.1 3.1 3.1 N/A 10 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 33 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 32 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 36 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 2.9 3.5 N/A 2.9 29 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.4 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Prudek Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.3 67 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 28 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 36 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.5 3.7 N/A 3.5 36 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.5 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 2.9 District Judge Judge Judge Number of Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Prudek Score Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1 70 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.5 3.6 3 71 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3 3.4 3.3 2.8 71 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.8 3.5 N/A 2.8 38 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.2 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 3.1 District Judge Judge Judge Number of Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Prudek Score Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 33 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.2 67 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 32 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 34 Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.7 N/A 3.4 35 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 35 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 34 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Prudek Score 3.1 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Prudek Attorneys Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Prudek District Judge Prudek Judge Prudek Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 36 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.0 3.5 N/A 3.0 36 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.2 3.6 N/A 3.2 18 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 34 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Prudek 3 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Prudek enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Prudek Score 4.0 Judge Prudek District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 4.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Prudek, 69 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 69 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 143,430 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 Marla R. Prudek 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 Marla R. Prudek 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 Marla R. Prudek 16 ## Page 17 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 3 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Prudek to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 181 54 0 33 61% Law Enforcement 162 4 4 2 50% Litigant 1173 16 306 12 75% Juror 27 5 4 5 100% Others 153 23 8 17 74% Total Non-Attorneys 1515 48 322 36 75% Total Respondents 1696 102 322 69 68% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 18
  • 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Overall score

    2.8

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    83%

    59 respondents

    Non-attorneys recommend

    35%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Marla R. Prudek 2022 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 . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 8 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications . 10 Demeanor . 11 Diligence . 12 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Prudek, 86 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 86 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 2.8 2 1 0 Judge Prudek All District Judges Judge Prudek All District Judges Overall Grade 2.8 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 83% 83% 79% 80% 57% 60% 40% 35% 20% 14% 16% 12% 8% 3% 4% 5% 0% Judge Prudek All District Judges Judge Prudek All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Prudek Prudek Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 83% 83% 35% 79% standards No, does not meet 14% 12% 57% 16% performance standards No opinion 3% 4% 8% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Case Management 3.4 2.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 2.9 Communications 3.5 2.8 Diligence 3.4 2.7 Demeanor 3.4 2.5 Fairness 3.3 Judge Prudek All District Judges Judge All District Prudek Judges Case Management 3.0 3.4 Application and Knowledge 2.5 3.3 of Law Communications 2.9 3.5 Diligence 2.8 3.4 Demeanor 2.7 3.4 Fairness 2.5 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 59 20% 64% 38 Non- 65 - - 48 Attorneys *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 Prudek received 6 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 6 ## Page 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Overall 3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.4 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 2.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Prudek Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.2 3.4 3.5 2.8 64 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3 3.4 3.5 2.6 69 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.0 66 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 2.8 3.4 3.1 2.4 67 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Overall 2.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.2 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 1.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Prudek Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 2.6 3.3 3.3 1.9 74 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 35 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 32 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 34 rules Giving reasons for rulings 1.9 3.2 N/A 1.9 38 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 1.7 3.3 N/A 1.7 35 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Overall 2.9 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.3 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 2.6 District Judge Prudek Judge Prudek Judge Prudek Number of Judges Non- Overall Attorneys Responses Overall Attorneys Making sure all participants 2.7 3.5 3.3 2.2 72 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 32 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 2.6 3.6 N/A 2.6 37 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 2.9 3.6 N/A 2.9 37 being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Score 2.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.5 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 1.9 District Judge Judge Judge Number of Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Prudek Score Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.7 3.5 3.5 2.0 71 Treating participants with respect 2.7 3.4 3.5 1.9 72 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 1.7 3.2 N/A 1.7 37 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Prudek Score 2.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.3 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 2.3 District Judge Judge Judge Number of Judges Prudek Prudek Non- Prudek Score Responses Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 35 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 35 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 34 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.1 3.5 N/A 3.1 35 Maintaining appropriate control 2.4 3.5 N/A 2.4 37 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 2.3 3.4 N/A 2.3 34 cases Being prepared for cases. 2.1 3.4 N/A 2.1 37 Managing court proceedings so 2 3.4 N/A 2.0 37 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Prudek Score 2.5 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Prudek Attorneys 3.4 Judge Prudek Non-Attorneys 1.7 Judge Prudek District Judge Prudek Judge Prudek Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 1.8 3.3 N/A 1.8 37 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 1.8 3.2 N/A 1.8 37 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 1.7 3.3 N/A 1.7 30 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 1.7 3.3 N/A 1.7 37 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 2.5 3.3 3.4 1.7 72 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 35 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Prudek 2 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Prudek enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Prudek Score 3.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Prudek District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.0 3.7 2 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Prudek, 86 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 86 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, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 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 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 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 an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. 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 quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. 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 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 list of all judges in their district our 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 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 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 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 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 2021 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. 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, 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 16 ## Page 17 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 39 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 2 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Prudek 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 21st, 2022. 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. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 291 59 38 64% Staff - 4 4 - Others 528 54 37 69% Juror - 1 1 - Citizen Feedback - 6 6 Total Non-Attorneys - 65 48 - Total Respondents - 124 86 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 19
• 2016 cycle
  • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Marla R. Prudek 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Marla R. Prudek El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Prudek: 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 fifth 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 Marla R. Prudek received an overall combined average grade of 3.18 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.64, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.71, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Prudek Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.18 2.64 3.71 Sample Size -- 48 83 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Prudek’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Prudek Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.18 2.64 48 3.71 83 Overall 3.18 2.64 48 3.71 83 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 district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.84, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. 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 Prudek’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district 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 District Judge Prudek Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.83 49 59% 3.50 34 41% 3.84 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Marla R. Prudek (Sample Size 48) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All District Sample Size = 48 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 27% 27% 5% 11% 5% 25% 2.82 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 41% 23% 11% 9% 16% 0% 2.64 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 32% 30% 7% 14% 5% 14% 2.82 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 43% 34% 7% 7% 5% 5% 3.10 3.24 Overall Case Management 2.85 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 36% 30% 5% 9% 16% 5% 2.64 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 32% 30% 5% 7% 23% 5% 2.43 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 23% 16% 7% 5% 27% 23% 2.03 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 24% 28% 10% 14% 14% 10% 2.38 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.37 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 45% 27% 7% 7% 7% 7% 3.05 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 36% 20% 2% 14% 9% 18% 2.75 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.90 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 45% 23% 9% 11% 9% 2% 2.86 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 50% 20% 5% 9% 14% 2% 2.86 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 43% 20% 2% 9% 25% 0% 2.48 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 39% 23% 5% 5% 27% 2% 2.42 3.24 Overall Demeanor 2.66 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 34% 20% 9% 9% 20% 7% 2.41 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 39% 14% 16% 9% 16% 7% 2.54 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 32% 23% 16% 2% 14% 14% 2.66 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.54 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 2.64 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 3% 23% Completely neutral 34% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 21% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 41% 3% Don't know or not sure 0% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 41% 57% Recommend retain 20% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 9% Recommend not retain 11% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 23% 6% Total Retain 61% 79% Neither 5% 9% Total Not Retain 34% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 2.64 Overall Average Grade 3.29 2.85 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.82 case after trial. 3.35 2.64 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 2.82 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.10 3.24 2.37 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 2.64 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 2.43 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 2.03 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2.38 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 2.90 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.05 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 2.75 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Marla R. Prudek 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 2.66 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 2.86 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 2.86 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.48 neutral manner. 3.26 2.42 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 2.54 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.41 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.54 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.66 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 3% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 34% Completely Neutral 49% 21% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 41% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 0% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained or not retained in office? 41% Strongly recommend retain 57% 20% Recommend retain 22% 5% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Prudek Judges* Total Retain 61% 79% 11% Neither 5% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 34% 12% 23% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Marla R. Prudek (Sample Size 83) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All District Sample Size = 83 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 18% 5% 1% 0% 5% 3.67 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 13% 4% 0% 1% 5% 3.73 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 70% 14% 2% 4% 0% 10% 3.67 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 13% 6% 0% 1% 9% 3.67 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 2% 0% 1% 7% 3.72 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 71% 14% 3% 3% 1% 9% 3.66 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 0% 1% 1% 36% 3.69 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 75% 11% 4% 1% 1% 8% 3.70 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.69 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 13% 1% 4% 0% 6% 3.72 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 14% 3% 1% 0% 6% 3.76 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 9% 3% 3% 0% 6% 3.77 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.75 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 72% 15% 1% 1% 1% 9% 3.71 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 82% 10% 0% 3% 0% 5% 3.81 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 73% 14% 0% 1% 0% 13% 3.80 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 69% 11% 4% 1% 0% 15% 3.74 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 13% 4% 1% 1% 10% 3.68 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.75 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 68% 15% 1% 0% 4% 11% 3.63 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 58% 14% 1% 0% 4% 23% 3.59 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 70% 15% 0% 3% 1% 11% 3.69 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.64 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.71 3.62 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 9% Competely neutral 85% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.01 0.05 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 4% 10% Competely neutral 83% 78% Lenient sentencing total 13% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.20 0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 65% 74% Recommend retain 20% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% 5% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 5% Total Retain 85% 87% Neither 12% 5% Total Not Retain 2% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.71 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.69 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.67 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.73 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.67 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.67 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.69 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.72 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.66 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.70 their case. 3.64 3.75 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.72 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.76 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.77 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Marla R. Prudek 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.75 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.71 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.81 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.80 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.74 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.68 little wasted time. 3.54 3.64 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.63 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.59 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.69 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.01 Marla R. Prudek 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.20 Marla R. Prudek 0.01 All District 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. Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained or not retained in office? 65% Strongly recommend retain 74% 20% Recommend retain 13% 12% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 5% Judge Prudek Judges* 0% Total Retain 85% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 12% 5% Total Not Retain 2% 7% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marla R. Prudek All District Judges* * Includes only the District 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 District 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 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, 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 District 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 district 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 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 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 next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding District 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 District Judges a. Sample: Research Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: •Colorado Judicial Department •Colorado District Attorneys’ Council •Colorado Public Defender’s Office •Denver County Courts •District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges 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 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 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, 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 District 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 district 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 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 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 District 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 Prudek 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 District Judges surveys for all district judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 89 34 34 0 21 38.2% Defense Attorneys 39 27 3 0 9 25.0% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 53 16 19 0 18 52.9% Total Attorneys 181 77 56 0 48 38.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 190 126 31 9 24 15.1% Law Enforcement 80 63 13 3 1 1.5% Defendant 190 68 112 1 9 11.5% Civil Litigant 3 3 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 137 76 7 5 49 37.7% Total Non-attorneys 600 336 163 18 83 19.0% Grand Total: 781 413 219 18 131 23.3% 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 District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3274 1428 751 0 1095 43.4% Defense Attorneys 3719 1749 506 0 1464 45.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 27 15 2 0 10 40.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2914 1052 331 0 1531 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4034 1557 784 0 1693 52.1% GAL 12 0 0 0 12 100.0% Total Attorneys 13980 5801 2374 0 5805 50.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16581 7287 8265 113 916 11.0% Civil Litigant 8549 4861 2208 134 1346 21.2% Witness 198 90 51 3 54 36.7% Other 233 106 45 14 68 36.2% Jurors 10460 4127 813 157 5363 55.6% Employees, including Interpreters 582 110 93 10 369 75.5% Probation Officers 468 130 96 1 241 64.8% Total Non-attorneys 47196 22177 14417 921 9681 29.5% Grand Total: 61176 27978 16791 921 15486 34.9% * Includes only the District 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 District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 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. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9681 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Average Grade All District 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 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District 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 Marla R. Prudek 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District 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 Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Marla R. Prudek, 136 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 82 agreed they had worked with Judge Prudek enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 82 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.42 Attorneys 2.77 Total Non-Attorneys 3.79 Juror 3.90 Non-Attorney Other* 3.66 Table 1 Judge Marla R. Prudek Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.42 2.77 3.79 3.90 3.66 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 80% Attorneys 58% Total Non-Attorneys 92% Juror 96% Non-Attorney Other 87% Table 2 Judge Marla R. Prudek Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 80% 58% 92% 96% 87% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Marla R. Prudek Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 2.78 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.54 3.81 3.97 3.62 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.09 3.81 3.84 3.76 Diligence 2.60 3.67 3.76 3.56 Demeanor 2.82 3.81 3.94 3.65 Fairness N/A 3.87 3.99 3.73 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 161 11 29 37% 48% Total Non- 901 223 53 12% 34% Attorneys Staff 4 0 2 75% 33% Jurors 213 1 29 15% 6% Other Non- 684 222 22 10% 52% 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 Marla R. Prudek 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Prudek, 56 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 29 agreed they had worked with Judge Prudek enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 29 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 “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 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. 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 5 ## Page 8 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). 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. 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 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 bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 6 ## Page 9 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 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, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. 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 Marla R. Prudek 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Marla R. Prudek be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Marla R. Prudek Total Retain 58% Neither 10% Total Not Retain 31% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 55% 60% 40% 24% 20% 3% 13% 10% 6% 7% 5% 9% 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 Prudek All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 Prudek 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 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 2.78 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.96 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 2.61 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.76 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 2.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 6 Case Management Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 29 Prudek Judges Promptly issuing a decision on 34% 7% 10% 7% 10% 31% 2.70 3.41 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 38% 31% 10% 10% 10% -- 2.76 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 34% 24% 17% 7% 14% 3% 2.61 3.32 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 38% 31% 21% -- 7% 3% 2.96 3.29 cases Case Management Overall Average 2.78 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 Prudek 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 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.54 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.55 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.48 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 2.31 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.41 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.62 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 29 Prudek Judges Being able to identify and 41% 14% 24% 7% 14% -- 2.62 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 38% 17% 14% 10% 21% -- 2.41 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 21% 16% 21% 21% 5% 16% 2.31 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 48% 7% 14% 7% 24% -- 2.48 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 41% 14% 17% 14% 14% -- 2.55 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.54 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 Prudek 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 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.09 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 2.96 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.22 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 8 Communications Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 28 Prudek Judges Making sure all participants 48% 24% 17% -- 3% 7% 3.22 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 38% 14% 21% -- 7% 21% 2.96 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.09 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 Prudek 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 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 2.82 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.64 3.33 Treating participants with respect 2.86 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.96 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 9 Demeanor Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 28 Prudek Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 48% 17% 17% 7% 7% 3% 2.96 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 55% 10% 7% 10% 14% 3% 2.86 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 52% 10% 7% 3% 24% 3% 2.64 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.82 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 Prudek 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. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 2.60 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 2.85 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 2.48 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 2.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 10 Diligence Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 29 Prudek Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 41% 14% 14% 17% 14% -- 2.52 3.16 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 41% 10% 17% 17% 14% -- 2.48 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 45% 14% 21% 3% 10% 7% 2.85 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.60 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Prudek in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 80% 60% 51% 50% 40% 33% 23% 20% 11% 11% 11% 6% 5% 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 Prudek All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Prudek, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Prudek enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. 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 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 15 ## Page 18 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 16 ## Page 19 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B,C,D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Prudek 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 4 Prudek Judges Overall performance as a 10% 10% -- -- -- 81% 3.50 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Marla R. Prudek, 80 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 53 agreed they had worked with Judge Prudek enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 53 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 February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or 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 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: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 19 ## Page 22 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 Marla R. Prudek 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge Marla R. Prudek Total Retain 92% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 0% Figure 10 100% 79% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 13% 12% 8% 6% 6% 3% 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 Prudek All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 21 ## Page 24 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 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.81 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.77 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.83 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.83 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.79 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 13 Demeanor Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 53 Prudek Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 85% 11% 2% 2% -- -- 3.79 3.66 Treating participants with respect 89% 9% -- -- 2% -- 3.83 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 87% 11% -- 2% -- -- 3.83 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 83% 11% 2% -- 2% 2% 3.77 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.81 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 22 ## Page 25 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 3.87 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.89 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.83 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.85 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.87 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 14 Fairness Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 53 Prudek Judges Giving participants an 91% 8% -- 2% -- -- 3.87 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 89% 9% -- 2% -- -- 3.85 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 60% 6% -- 2% -- 32% 3.83 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 92% 6% -- 2% -- -- 3.89 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.87 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 23 ## Page 26 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 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.81 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.79 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.85 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.77 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 15 Communications Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 53 Prudek Judges Making sure all participants understand the 85% 11% 2% -- 2% -- 3.77 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 89% 8% 4% -- -- -- 3.85 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 83% 15% -- 2% -- -- 3.79 3.75 hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.81 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 24 ## Page 27 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 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.67 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.51 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.77 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.81 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.78 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 16 Diligence Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 53 Prudek Judges Beginning court on time 67% 19% 4% 2% 4% 4% 3.50 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 77% 13% -- -- 2% 8% 3.78 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 85% 9% 2% 2% -- 2% 3.81 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 77% 9% 2% -- 2% 9% 3.77 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 65% 23% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.67 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 25 ## Page 28 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 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.81 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.79 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 3.77 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Prudek Table 17 Application of Law Judge Marla R. Prudek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 49 Prudek Judges Giving reasons for rulings 72% 9% -- 2% -- 17% 3.82 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 9% 2% 2% -- 17% 3.77 3.56 pressure Being able to identify and 77% 12% -- -- 2% 10% 3.79 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.81 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Prudek is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Prudek is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 85% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2% 4% 6% 5% 8% 4% 4% 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 Prudek All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 27 ## Page 30 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 Prudek are. If you feel Judge Prudek generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 88% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2% 3% 2% 7% 6% 4% 2% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Prudek All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Marla R. Prudek 28
• 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 MMaarrllaa RR.. PPrruuddeekk 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Marla R. Prudek El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Prudek: 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. Marla R. Prudek 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 3.30, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.57, Judge Marla R. Prudek’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.44. Judge Prudek Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.44 3.30 3.57 Sample Size - 46 65 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Prudek from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Prudek’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Prudek Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 3.15 2.87 5 3.43 8 2010 3.48 3.35 41 3.60 57 Overall 3.44 3.30 46 3.57 65 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 Prudek’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 Prudek 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 % % 3.82 3.30 2008 % % 3.82 3.26 100 % 2009 3.43 8 % 3.83 3.22 2010 3.85 44 77% 2.76 13 23% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.78 52 80% 2.76 13 20% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Prudek’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 MMaarrllaa RR.. PPrruuddeekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 4466)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Sample Size = 46 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 41% 15% 2% 0% 4% 37% 3.41 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 52% 28% 9% 2% 4% 4% 3.27 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 17% 7% 0% 2% 28% 3.45 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 54% 28% 7% 2% 2% 7% 3.40 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.38 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 51% 20% 13% 7% 2% 7% 3.19 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 44% 29% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.15 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 31% 16% 9% 4% 0% 40% 3.22 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 55% 21% 3% 3% 3% 15% 3.43 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.25 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 60% 24% 7% 7% 0% 2% 3.41 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 29% 11% 9% 4% 2% 44% 3.08 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.25 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 60% 22% 9% 2% 4% 2% 3.34 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 7% 7% 0% 2% 3.48 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 16% 9% 2% 9% 2% 3.23 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 56% 18% 13% 2% 4% 7% 3.26 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 11% 2% 7% 2% 3.18 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 20% 7% 11% 2% 9% 3.17 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 42% 20% 7% 0% 2% 29% 3.41 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Judges Sample Size = 46 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 12% 28% Completely neutral 61% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 3% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 2% Don't know or not sure 12% 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 78% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 7% Total Retain 90% 88% Total Not Retain 9% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 11% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Total Retain 82% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.30 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.38 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.41 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.27 proceedings. 3.44 3.45 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.40 3.39 3.25 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.19 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.15 3.16 3.22 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.43 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.25 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.41 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.08 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Marla R. Prudek All County Judges Judge Marla R. Prudek 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.33 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.34 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.48 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.23 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.26 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.25 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.18 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.17 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.41 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. 9% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 12% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 61% Completely Neutral 50% 3% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 3% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 12% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Marla R. Prudek All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 78% Strongly recommend retain 71% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 17% All Cnty Judge Prudek Judges 7% Total Retain 90% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 9% 13% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 71% Strongly recommend retain 68% 11% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty 9% Judge Prudek Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 82% 84% Undecided or DK 9% 5% 7% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 9% 12% 6% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marla R. Prudek All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarrllaa RR.. PPrruuddeekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6655)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Sample Size = 65 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 20% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3.63 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 85% 8% 3% 0% 3% 2% 3.73 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 75% 17% 2% 0% 5% 2% 3.61 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 74% 15% 3% 2% 5% 2% 3.55 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 9% 2% 3% 5% 2% 3.59 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 0% 5% 5% 3.63 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 45% 8% 0% 3% 3% 41% 3.50 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 12% 0% 2% 5% 8% 3.62 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.59 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 3% 0% 5% 2% 3.61 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 17% 3% 0% 3% 0% 3.64 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 73% 19% 2% 3% 3% 0% 3.56 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.60 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 66% 20% 8% 0% 3% 3% 3.51 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 11% 3% 3% 3% 0% 3.62 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 71% 11% 3% 2% 3% 11% 3.62 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 77% 9% 2% 3% 3% 6% 3.64 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 18% 6% 0% 5% 2% 3.50 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 14% 3% 2% 6% 14% 3.43 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 51% 9% 2% 0% 6% 32% 3.45 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 63% 9% 3% 2% 6% 17% 3.46 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.45 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Judges Sample Size = 65 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 10% 12% Competely neutral 88% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 2% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.22 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 9% 12% Competely neutral 89% 77% Lenient sentencing total 3% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.16 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 7% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 93% 92% Total Not Retain 8% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 77% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 6% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 11% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 83% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 11% 8% Total Not Retain 6% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.57 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.63 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.63 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.73 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.61 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.59 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.59 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.63 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.50 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.62 or her case. 3.59 3.60 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 3.64 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.56 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Marla R. Prudek All County Judges Judge Marla R. Prudek 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.58 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.51 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.62 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.62 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.64 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.50 little wasted time. 3.50 3.45 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.43 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.45 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.46 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.22 Marla R. Prudek 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.16 Marla R. Prudek 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Marla R. Prudek All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Marla R. Prudek All County Judges Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 7% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% All Cnty Judge Prudek Judges Total Retain 93% 92% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 8% 2% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 11% All Cnty Undecided 8% Judge Prudek Judges Total Retain 83% 85% 3% Undecided 11% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 6% 7% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marla R. Prudek 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 Prudek 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 Marla R. Prudek 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 51 46 0 0 5 9.8% Defense Attorneys 90 53 0 0 37 41.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Other Attorneys Civil 8 6 0 0 2 25.0% Total Attorneys 151 105 0 0 46 30.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 125 78 36 5 6 6.7% Law Enforcement 6 2 3 0 1 33.3% Defendant 191 98 83 3 6 5.6% Civil Litigant 18 13 4 1 0 0.0% Witness 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 120 63 4 0 52 44.8% Employees 5 3 1 1 0 0.0% Total Non-attorneys 467 259 131 10 65 19.3% Grand Total: 618 364 131 10 111 22.8% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee MMaarrllaa RR.. PPrruuddeekk 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Marla R. Prudek El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Prudek: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Marla R. Prudek March 26, 2012 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Marla R. Prudek received an overall combined average grade of 3.45 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.36, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.54, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.45 [not shown below]. Judge Prudek Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.45 3.36 3.54 Sample Size - 98 178 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Prudek’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Prudek Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 2009 3.15 2.87 5 3.43 8 2010 3.48 3.35 41 3.60 57 2011 3.50 3.41 52 3.59 113 Overall 3.45 3.36 98 3.54 178 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.85, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.29. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Prudek’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Prudek Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Prudek Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.77 89 50% 3.31 89 50% 3.85 3.29 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarrllaa RR.. PPrruuddeekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 9988)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Sample Size = 98 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 12% 6% 1% 2% 30% 3.49 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 57% 23% 6% 4% 6% 3% 3.25 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 53% 17% 6% 3% 1% 19% 3.47 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 20% 5% 1% 5% 6% 3.42 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.41 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 20% 11% 4% 4% 5% 3.25 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 53% 22% 6% 8% 3% 8% 3.22 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 13% 7% 5% 2% 32% 3.24 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 60% 16% 3% 5% 4% 11% 3.38 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.27 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 67% 22% 5% 3% 1% 2% 3.53 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 38% 13% 5% 4% 1% 40% 3.34 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 68% 19% 5% 2% 5% 1% 3.43 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 76% 10% 4% 6% 2% 1% 3.54 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 65% 15% 5% 4% 10% 1% 3.20 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 57% 19% 9% 2% 4% 8% 3.34 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 23% 5% 5% 7% 3% 3.19 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 18% 9% 5% 3% 9% 3.29 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 53% 16% 5% 1% 2% 23% 3.51 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.33 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.36 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Sample Size = 98 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 4% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 8% 30% Completely neutral 64% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 8% 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 7% 1% Don't know or not sure 8% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 81% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 7% Total Retain 90% 86% Total Not Retain 10% 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 76% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 7% Total Retain 84% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.36 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.49 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.25 proceedings. 3.44 3.47 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.41 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.42 3.40 3.27 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.25 relevant facts. 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.22 3.15 3.24 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.38 when circumstances are similar. 3.28 3.44 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.53 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.34 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.31 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Judges Judge Marla R. Prudek 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.38 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.29 3.43 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.54 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.36 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.20 in a neutral manner. 3.19 3.34 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.33 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.28 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.19 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.29 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.51 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 4% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 8% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 64% Completely Neutral 49% 8% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 8% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain 70% 9% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Retention Judge Prudek Judges 8% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 90% 86% 7% Total Not Retain 10% 14% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain 66% 8% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Including Und/DK Respondents 6% Undecided or DK All Cnty 5% Retention Judge Prudek Judges 7% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 84% 81% 6% Undecided or DK 6% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 13% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee MMaarrllaa RR.. PPrruuddeekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 117788)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Sample Size = 178 A B C D Fail DK/NA Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 24% 5% 1% 2% 2% 3.56 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 16% 2% 1% 4% 2% 3.63 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 72% 18% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3.58 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 18% 5% 2% 4% 3% 3.51 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.57 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 70% 17% 5% 1% 3% 3% 3.54 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 16% 5% 1% 5% 3% 3.49 3.53 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 43% 13% 3% 2% 3% 34% 3.38 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.47 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.47 3.57 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 72% 19% 4% 1% 3% 2% 3.58 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 72% 20% 5% 1% 2% 1% 3.60 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 74% 18% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.60 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 65% 21% 7% 1% 3% 4% 3.51 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 73% 18% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3.62 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 20% 3% 2% 2% 9% 3.57 3.59 4d. Being prepared for cases. 67% 18% 3% 2% 2% 9% 3.61 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 65% 22% 5% 2% 3% 3% 3.49 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 59% 19% 4% 1% 4% 12% 3.47 3.51 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 54% 16% 2% 1% 4% 23% 3.49 3.53 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 61% 18% 4% 2% 5% 11% 3.45 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.47 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.54 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Marla R. Prudek Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Sample Size = 178 Judges 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% 12% Competely neutral 89% 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% 6% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.07 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 6% 12% Competely neutral 88% 78% Lenient sentencing total 7% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.04 0.14 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 86% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 96% 92% Total Not Retain 5% 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 7% Undecided or Don't Know 11% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 5% Total Retain 86% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 11% 8% Total Not Retain 4% 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.54 Overall Average Grade 3.58 3.57 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.56 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.63 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.58 manner. 3.56 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.51 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.48 3.47 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.57 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.54 heard. 3.60 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.49 case without bias. 3.53 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.38 themselves. 3.53 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.47 or her case. 3.60 3.60 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.58 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.60 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.62 can hear what's being said. 3.71 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Judges Judge Marla R. Prudek 12 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.56 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.51 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.49 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.62 proceedings. 3.69 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.57 3.59 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.61 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.49 little wasted time. 3.52 3.47 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.52 3.47 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.51 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.49 possible outside pressure. 3.53 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.45 relevant facts. 3.52 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.07 Marla R. Prudek 0.15 All County Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.04 Marla R. Prudek 0.14 All County Retention Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Judges 13 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Marla R. Prudek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Prudek be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 8% All Cnty Retention 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Prudek Judges 3% Total Retain 96% 92% Total Not Retain 5% 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 7% 11% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 8% All Cnty Retention 2% Judge Prudek Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 86% 84% 2% Undecided 11% 8% 2% Total Not Retain 4% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Marla R. Prudek All County Retention Judges 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention).  The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an 16 ## Page 20 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The 17 ## Page 21 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges  RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. 18 ## Page 22 As stated above, court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 19 ## Page 23 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Prudek is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Marla R. Prudek 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 117 67 31 0 19 22.1% Defense Attorneys 170 88 9 0 73 45.3% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Other Attorneys Civil 15 8 3 0 4 33.3% Total Attorneys 305 163 44 0 98 37.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 645 395 189 30 31 6.8% Law Enforcement 19 9 6 3 1 7.7% Defendant 823 393 365 19 46 10.0% Civil Litigant 31 19 9 2 1 4.5% Witness 4 3 0 0 1 25.0% Jurors 192 93 9 1 89 48.6% Employees, including Interpreters 17 4 4 1 8 61.5% Probation Officers 14 5 8 0 1 16.7% Total Non-attorneys 1745 921 590 56 178 15.4% Grand Total: 2050 1084 634 56 276 19.5% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2049 1103 289 0 657 37.3% Defense Attorneys 8880 5065 774 0 3041 37.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 12 7 1 0 4 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 441 266 30 0 145 35.3% Other Attorneys Civil 1346 701 191 0 454 39.3% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 24 8 7 1 8 47.1% Total Attorneys 12752 7150 1292 1 4309 37.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 277 159 90 15 13 7.0% Witness 4435 2510 1368 182 375 12.2% Other 549 334 156 20 39 9.9% Law Enforcement 3638 2574 457 92 515 16.2% Defendant 24165 11842 9981 329 2013 14.2% Civil Litigant 4982 2497 1744 118 623 19.2% Witness 1544 856 331 44 313 25.8% Other 78 50 20 2 6 10.3% Jurors 11310 5027 1133 268 4882 48.0% Employees, including Interpreters 666 182 95 12 377 66.0% Probation Officers 415 109 97 5 204 64.2% Total Non-attorneys 52059 26140 15472 1087 9360 25.6% Grand Total: 64811 33290 16764 1088 13669 28.4% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4309 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 17% 5% 1% 1% 25% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.41 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 5% 3.40 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 24% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 12% 6% 4% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 18% 10% 6% 5% 23% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 17% 7% 3% 2% 30% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 20% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 17% 9% 4% 4% 1% 3.36 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.19 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 20% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.29 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 22% 9% 4% 3% 11% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 16% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.28 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4309 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 81% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 9360 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.56 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.48 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.60 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.53 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.53 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.57 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 66% 20% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3.49 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.69 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 4% 2% 2% 13% 3.59 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.52 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 17% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.51 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 12% 4% 2% 3% 18% 3.53 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.52 Overall Application of Law 3.52 Overall Average Grade: 3.58 Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 9360 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% Competely neutral 82% Biased in favor of the defense total 6% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 78% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.14 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 84% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 92% Total Not Retain 8% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 77% Somewhat recommend retain 7% Undecided or Don't Know 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% Total Not Retain 7% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 31 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 32 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 33 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 34 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 35 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page

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

• 2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026