← All judges

Emil Anthony Rinaldi

Trial Court · Adams · Adams

Meets Standards(No Opinion)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(No Opinion)
    Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Emil A. Rinaldi BE RETAINED. Judge Rinaldi was appointed to the bench in August 1984. Prior to his appointment, Judge Rinaldi was a Deputy District Attorney. He received his undergraduate degree from Binghamton University, New York in 1973, and his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1980. Judge Rinaldi hears predominately criminal cases. He is actively involved in the community, primarily supporting various high school activities. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Rinaldi from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments attached to the evaluation questionnaires. The Commission also reviewed a self-evaluation prepared by the judge. The Commission held a public hearing on April 4, 2002, and no comments were made at the hearing regarding Judge Rinaldi. A citizen did call the Commission chair to voice support for the judge. The Commission completed its evaluation by personally interviewing Judge Rinaldi. The results of the survey were positive for Judge Rinaldi. Ninety percent of non-attorneys and 76% of attorneys recommended retention. In addition, only 3% of non-attorneys and only 16% of attorneys recommended that Judge Rinaldi not be retained. The remainder of the respondents had no opinion. The survey results from non-attorneys generally placed Judge Rinaldi at or above survey results for all county and trial judges in the categories of courtesy, impartiality, communication skills, judicial temperament, diligence and application of the law. The written comments from non-attorneys were positive with only a few respondents expressing mild criticisms. The results of the attorney survey ranked Judge Rinaldi consistent with the results for other county and all trial judges. The scores and written comments were generally positive with some criticisms related to courtesy. During his interview, Judge Rinaldi acknowledged the comments and expressed his commitment to improve. Based on the results of the survey and personal interview, the Commission found Judge Rinaldi to be a competent and fair judge. The Commission recommends that Judge Rinaldi be retained.
  • 1998 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Emil A. Rinaldi BE RETAINED. Judge Rinaldi was appointed to the county court in September 1984. Previously he was an Assistant Adams County Attorney in 1984 and an Adams County Deputy District Attorney from 1981-1984. Judge Rinaldi worked as a VISTA volunteer from 1973-1975 and subsequent to that he worked for the Virgin Islands Division of Mental Health from 1975-1976. Judge Rinaldi presides over mostly traffic and misdemeanor cases. Responses from survey groups indicate that he demonstrates strong qualities expected of a judge in his knowledge of the law and fairness in his decision making. Comments from attorney and other survey groups indicate that he could improve in the area of temperament. However, comments from the surveys also indicate that he is kind, runs his docket well, and is highly commended as a professional in his position. A strong majority of those responding indicate that Judge Rinaldi should be retained.
  • 1994 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain Emil A. Rinaldi graduated from the State University of New York with a Bachelor of Arts Degree and received his Juris Doctor Degree from Colorado University in 1980. He was admitted to the Bar in the State of Colorado in 1980. Prior to his appointment to the Adams County bench, he served as an assistant county attorney for Adams County and a deputy district attorney for the 17th Judicial District. Judge Rinaldi was appointed to the Adams County bench in August of 1984 and has served in that capacity for nearly ten years. As a county court judge, 99% of the cases he hears are criminal or related cases involving 40% traffic, 39% misdemeanor, 20% felony complaints, and ½ of 1% domestic relations matters. Based upon information supplied to the Commission and personal interviews, Judge Rinaldi was rated high in all categories of evaluation. He scored highest for writing clear written decisions, maintaining courtroom control, working diligently and issuing prompt rulings and decisions. Comments from those evaluations include: good judge, outstanding discretionary ability, practical, effective, great demeanor/presence in the courtroom, a fair and competent judge. Seems at times to be a bit formalistic, tends to be moody and at times can be hostile to inexperienced attorneys. Judge Rinaldi has indicated a preference for assignments to the criminal division. He participates in other activities relative to the improvement of the Adams County Bar Association. The evaluation of the Commission included comments as follows: involved, thoughtful, high technical expertise, implemented system for expediting his own docket. The 17th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends unanimously that Judge Rinaldi BE RETAINED.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Adams · Adams
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Rinaldi has been a county court judge since 1984. He graduated from the University of Colorado law school in 1980. He worked as a Deputy District Attorney in Adams County for about three years. He was with the Adams County Attorney’s Office when he was appointed to the bench. He presently handles traffic and misdemeanor cases and conducts preliminary hearings in felony cases. Rinaldi was rated fairly high on the questionnaires. The comments were, for the most part, positive. For example, one person wrote: “Judge Rinaldi is a most valuable asset to the district. He brings a nice balance of professional control and court concern.” Another observed, “Good understanding of law, good sense of humor.” A third noted, “Judge Rinaldi is always very helpful, polite, very neat and he’s very precise.” However, there were some negative comments. For example, one respondent complained, “Judge Rinaldi . . . has no basis in law for his decisions.” A second person commented Rinaldi was “frequently rude, impolite, angry, strident and abrupt.” Finally, a third person felt Rinaldi “goes off on tangents and is not open to comments or arguments regarding legal advice.” The commission members who interviewed him were impressed with his answers to their questions. He scored well and seemed open and honest.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Emil A. Rinaldi Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Rinaldi: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Emil A. Rinaldi Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 29% 64% 65% B 29% 22% 21% C 20% 7% 7% D 12% 3% 3% Fail 8% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% 3% Average Grade 2.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 20% 64% 61% B 20% 20% 22% C 31% 7% 8% D 16% 4% 4% Fail 10% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 3% Average Grade 2.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 20% 55% 48% B 27% 17% 14% C 27% 8% 6% D 6% 2% 2% Fail 10% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 16% 29% Average Grade 2.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 67% 63% B 18% 15% 12% C 4% 4% 3% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 8% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 69% 66% B 20% 16% 14% C 10% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 4% 8% 12% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 70% 66% B 16% 14% 13% C 10% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 6% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.5 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 66% 65% B 20% 15% 13% C 6% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 60% 60% B 18% 18% 17% C 12% 9% 8% D 8% 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 2% 4% 5% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 58% 51% B 20% 14% 11% C 14% 6% 4% D 2% 2% 1% Fail 6% 2% 1% No Grade 10% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.1 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 56% 59% B 18% 15% 12% C 2% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 18% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 29% 37% B 22% 22% 23% C 8% 8% 9% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 31% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 51% 54% B 37% 30% 28% C 8% 10% 9% D 4% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 53% 54% B 27% 27% 26% C 14% 10% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 6% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 31% 62% 64% B 27% 21% 21% C 20% 7% 7% D 16% 5% 4% Fail 4% 2% 3% No Grade 2% 2% 3% Average Grade 2.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade C+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 31% 57% 57% B 20% 22% 22% C 24% 9% 8% D 12% 5% 5% Fail 10% 3% 4% No Grade 2% 3% 4% Average Grade 2.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade C+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 47% 46% B 43% 27% 27% C 8% 11% 11% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 3% 4% No Grade 4% 8% 8% Average Grade 3.2 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 51% 54% B 33% 27% 28% C 12% 11% 9% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 53% 54% B 33% 24% 25% C 8% 11% 10% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 4% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 53% 56% 58% B 31% 25% 23% C 8% 8% 7% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 4% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 39% 48% 49% B 24% 18% 18% C 12% 7% 7% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 6% 3% 3% No Grade 14% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 27% 35% 33% B 12% 14% 13% C 14% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 37% 43% 45% Average Grade 2.8 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B- B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 47% 53% B 31% 28% 25% C 12% 12% 9% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 2% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 47% 48% 49% B 31% 24% 25% C 10% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 3% No Grade 10% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 37% 40% 44% B 31% 30% 29% C 18% 13% 12% D 8% 6% 5% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 49% 50% B 20% 21% 20% C 8% 9% 8% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 8% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Rinaldi be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 76% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 16% 11% 11% No opinion 8% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 65% 67% B 19% 20% 19% C 3% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 51% 49% 47% B 17% 16% 15% C 2% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 2% No Grade 27% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 63% 65% B 16% 15% 14% C 1% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 65% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 2% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 64% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 2% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 64% 66% B 18% 16% 15% C 3% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 7% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 63% 65% B 17% 16% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 45% 43% B 14% 13% 12% C 2% 5% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 40% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 70% 60% 63% B 20% 16% 16% C 2% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 68% 70% B 18% 20% 19% C 5% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 1% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 67% 69% B 17% 19% 18% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 69% 72% B 18% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 1% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 64% 66% B 17% 18% 17% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 55% 56% B 20% 23% 22% C 7% 9% 8% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 55% 57% B 22% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 9% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 61% 64% B 17% 19% 18% C 3% 7% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 60% 62% B 19% 17% 16% C 2% 6% 5% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 11% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 64% 67% B 17% 17% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 60% 62% B 17% 19% 18% C 4% 6% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 12% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Rinaldi on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 53% 55% B 14% 15% 14% C 4% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 24% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Rinaldi be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Rinaldi Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 90% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 3% 9% 8% No opinion 7% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Emil A. Rinaldi Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 26 18 7 1 72.0% Attorney For Defendant 47 31 11 2 3 73.8% Attorney for Plaintiff Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 73 49 18 3 3 73.1% Law Enforcement 127 52 59 6 10 46.8% Social Services Caseworker Employee 31 7 15 5 4 31.8% Defendant 120 16 68 35 1 19.0% Plaintiff Juror 310 139 137 13 21 50.4% Victim 23 2 11 8 2 15.4% Other 76 13 47 10 6 21.7% Sub Total: 687 229 337 77 44 40.5% Total: 760 278 355 80 47 43.9% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 17

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