Valerie J. Robison
Trial Court · Mesa · Mesa
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2022 retention cycleTrial Court · Mesa · MesaMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 73.1% yes42,589 yes · 15,670 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 2022 Retention Survey Reports (PDF) 2019 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable Judge Valerie Jo Robison MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a unanimous vote of 9 - 0 Judge Robison is known for her calm and professional demeanor on the bench. In her judicial performance survey conducted by the State Judicial Department, 84% of attorneys and 87% of non-attorneys found that Judge Robison met performance standards. The Judicial Performance Commission assessed the integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Robison received solid scores in all these areas with communications, demeanor and fairness being her top assets. Comments offered in the judicial performance survey of Judge Robison indicate a consistent theme of exemplary communication, with one comment stating, “Judge Robison has a great judicial temperament.” In her interview with the Performance Commission, Judge Robison discussed her passion for learning and a desire to serve on other courts, which is testament to her desire to improve her practice and be the best Judge she can for the people she serves. In addition to reviewing the survey results from individuals that are in Judge Robison’s courtroom, the Performance Commission observed her courtroom, reviewed some of her authored orders, and interviewed the Chief Judge of the 21st Judicial District, representatives from the District Attorney’s office and the Public Defender’s office. Judge Robison was observed to be kind, knowledgeable, patient, and treated those before her with respect and dignity. In Judge Robison’s self-evaluation, she notes that she tries to use plain language and speak in a manner that individuals can understand what is happening, and that was evident in the observations conducted by judicial commissioners conducting this judicial performance review. Judge Robison was the Mesa County Attorney and Interim Executive Director for the Mesa County Department of Human Services and was appointed to the 21st Judiciary Court on June 15, 2007. Judge Robison has a primarily criminal docket followed by domestic relations and civil cases. The Judicial Commissioners noted that Judge Robison volunteers in many types of community outreach and programming, working tirelessly in both her courtroom and in the community. The Twenty-First Judicial Performance Commission is honored to have Judge Robison serve in Mesa County.
- 2016 retention cycleTrial Court · Mesa · MesaMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 63.4% yes40,582 yes · 23,441 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim 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 Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance by a vote of 8 to 2 recommends that Judge Valerie J. Robison BE RETAINED and further recommends that Judge Robison be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. Judge Robison was born and raised in Denver, Colorado. She attended the University of Colorado, graduating with a B.A. in 1986, and received her law degree from the University of Denver in 1991. Judge Robison was appointed as a District Court Judge on June 14, 2007. In addition to her duties on the bench, Judge Robison appropriately participates in community service. She previously worked as Mesa County Assistant Attorney and Interim Executive Director for the Mesa County Department of Human Services. Judge Robison was evaluated using information from the following sources: attorney surveys; direct information provided by the District Attorney’s Office; non-attorney surveys; Judge Robison’s self-evaluation; courtroom observations by the members of the Commission; review of written decisions issued by Judge Robison; and an interview with Judge Robison by the Commission. From completed surveys fifty-nine percent of attorneys and 91% percent of non-attorneys recommended that Judge Robison be retained in office. Twenty-nine percent of attorneys and 4% of non-attorneys recommended that Judge Robison not be retained. Attorneys graded Judge Robison’s overall performance as below the average of other district court judges statewide. Of particular concern to the attorneys was Judge Robison’s case management, including the issuance of timely rulings and decisions and setting reasonable schedules for cases. Judge Robison was also rated lower than other district court judges in the State on the application and knowledge of the law. Judge Robison’s demeanor was rated higher than district court judges statewide by both attorneys and non-attorneys. Non-attorneys’ grades on Judge Robison’s fairness, diligence, and communication exceeded those of district court judges statewide. Of concern to the Commission are Judge Robison’s low marks on case management and knowledge of the law. Weaknesses in these areas were also noted in Judge Robison’s Performance Review in 2010, and again in the Interim Review in 2013. Attorneys gave Judge Robison lower grades on making prompt rulings and sentencing decisions than she received in the Interim Review in 2013. Judge Robison’s performance shows little improvement despite her 2010 plan to address areas of weakness and feedback provided in the Interim Review. In her interview with the Commission, Judge Robison lacked insight about these weaknesses identified by attorneys and had not developed a plan to address them. The Commission commends Judge Robison for her demeanor in the courtroom, compassion for litigants and thoughtful manner of dealing with those whom appear before her. However, due to her continued weaknesses in the areas described above, this Commission has recommended that Judge Robison be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan to address these substantive issues that have been previously identified and not satisfactorily addressed.
- 2010 retention cycleTrial Court · Mesa · MesaMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 64.5% yes29,687 yes · 16,367 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Valerie J. Robison BE RETAINED. Judge Robison was born and raised in Denver, Colorado. She attended the University of Colorado, graduating with a B.A. in 1986, and received her law degree from the University of Denver in 1991. In addition to her duties on the bench, Judge Robison volunteers her time in other areas including: providing the keynote address to the Family First graduation, speaking to students at local schools and participating as the Lead Judge for the Twenty-First Judicial District Multi-Disciplinary Team. Given the leadership role that members of the judiciary serve in our community, the members of the Judicial Performance Commission urge our local Judges to provide public service to our community when such service can realistically occur given numerous other life commitments. Judge Robison was appointed to the bench on June 14, 2007 and began her tenure as a District Court Judge on August 6, 2007. Judge Robison previously worked as Mesa County Assistant County Attorney and Interim Executive Director for the Mesa County Department of Human Services. Judge Robison was evaluated through the following various methods: attorney surveys, non-attorney surveys, a self-evaluation, courtroom observations by the members of the Commission, review of written decisions issued by Judge Robison and an interview with the Commission. Attorneys graded Judge Robison below the average of other district court judges statewide. Of particular concern to attorneys was Judge Robison's overall application and knowledge of the law and her ability to apply that law to the facts. Additionally, Judge Robison was perceived by attorneys as being significantly more biased for the prosecution versus the defense in criminal cases than other judges statewide. This sample came from 32 total attorneys returning surveys, 18 of which self-identified as criminal defense attorneys. Non-attorneys consistently graded Judge Robison as a high performer whose grades exceeded those of district court judges statewide. Of particular note to non-attorneys was Judge Robison's demeanor, fairness and ability to communicate. Sixty-three percent of attorneys and 96% of non-attorneys recommended that Judge Robison be retained in office. The Commission determined through Judge Robison’s self-evaluation and interview that she is open to constructive criticism, strives to improve in any areas of weakness. Judge Robison plans to conduct anonymous surveys of attorneys who appear before her as well as to conduct meetings with local attorneys to discuss any areas of concern. Additionally, Judge Robison consults with other local Judges when she has difficult legal questions to decide. The Commission believes that Judge Robison should continue to strive to increase her legal knowledge, particularly in the area of criminal law which makes up 75% of her docket.
Surveys & reports
- 2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison, 108 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 108 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 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Robison All District Judges Judge Robison All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 93% 85% 85% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 12% 12% 11% 6% 5% 3% 3% 1% 0% Judge Robison All District Judges Judge Robison 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 Robison Robison Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 85% 82% 93% 85% standards No, does not meet 3% 12% 5% 11% performance standards No opinion 12% 6% 1% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.6 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.6 Diligence 3.4 3.7 Demeanor 3.5 3.7 Fairness 3.5 Judge Robison All District Judges Judge All District Robison Judges Case 3.3 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.6 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.6 3.4 Demeanor 3.7 3.5 Fairness 3.7 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 45 44% 73% 33 Non- 92 8% 82% 75 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Robison received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.3 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.2 3.4 3.2 N/A 28 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 32 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3 3.3 3 N/A 25 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 32 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Overall 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.4 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.7 105 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 32 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.2 3.1 3.2 N/A 12 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.7 3.3 3.7 N/A 32 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 33 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 68 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 67 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.5 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 104 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 33 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 74 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 74 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.7 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.7 107 Treating participants with respect 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.8 107 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.7 105 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 73 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.4 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 33 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 106 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 26 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 74 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 74 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 71 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 74 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 11 ## Page 12 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Robison Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Robison Attorneys Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Robison Robison Non- Robison Score Judges Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 74 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 72 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 48 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 71 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 12 ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Robison 8 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Robison enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Robison Score 3.8 Judge Robison District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.6 8 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Robison, 108 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 108 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 Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison 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, 8 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Robison 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 Valerie Robison 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 102 45 0 33 73% Law Enforcement 176 8 0 3 38% Litigant 960 19 219 17 89% Juror 152 41 5 39 95% Others 91 24 1 16 67% Total Non-Attorneys 1379 92 225 75 82% Total Respondents 1481 137 225 108 79% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 18 - 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.6judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend84%56 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend87%respondent count not on record
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Valerie J. Robison 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 Robison, 60 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 60 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 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Robison All District Judges Judge Robison All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 87% 84% 83% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 16% 12% 9% 9% 6% 4% 4% 5% 0% Judge Robison All District Judges Judge Robison 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 Robison Robison Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 84% 83% 87% 79% standards No, does not meet 9% 12% 4% 16% performance standards No opinion 6% 4% 9% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.7 Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.4 3.8 Demeanor 3.4 3.7 Fairness 3.3 Judge Robison All District Judges Judge All District Robison Judges Case Management 3.4 3.4 Application and Knowledge 3.4 3.3 of Law Communications 3.7 3.5 Diligence 3.5 3.4 Demeanor 3.8 3.4 Fairness 3.7 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 56 22% 66% 37 Non- 27 - - 23 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 Robison received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 6 ## Page 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.4 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 31 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 43 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.6 40 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 43 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.2 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5 54 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 33 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 26 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 31 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.8 3.2 N/A 3.8 21 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 3.7 3.3 N/A 3.7 18 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.5 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.9 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.8 3.5 3.7 4.0 56 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 34 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 23 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.9 3.6 N/A 3.9 23 being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.8 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.8 3.5 3.9 3.8 57 Treating participants with respect 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.9 57 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.8 3.2 N/A 3.8 23 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Robison Score 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.3 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Robison Judges Robison Robison Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.1 3.2 3.1 N/A 34 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.4 3.5 N/A 31 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 33 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 23 Maintaining appropriate control 3.9 3.5 N/A 3.9 23 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 21 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.8 3.4 N/A 3.8 22 Managing court proceedings so 3.6 3.4 N/A 3.6 23 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Robison Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Robison Attorneys 3.5 Judge Robison Non-Attorneys 3.8 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Robison Robison Non- Robison Score Judges Overall Responses Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 22 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.8 3.2 N/A 3.8 22 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.9 3.3 N/A 3.9 14 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.8 3.3 N/A 3.8 23 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.8 56 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 33 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Robison 13 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Robison enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Robison Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Robison District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.7 13 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Robison, 60 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 60 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 Valerie J. Robison 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 Valerie J. Robison 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 Valerie J. Robison 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, 13 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Robison 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 Valerie J. Robison 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 250 56 37 66% Staff - 7 7 - Others 118 8 4 50% Juror - 11 11 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 27 23 - Total Respondents - 83 60 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie J. Robison 19
- 2016 cycle
- 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21st Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Valerie Robison Mesa County Justice Center P.O. Box 20,000-5030 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Dear Judge Robison: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 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. 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. Valerie Robison May 28, 2013 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, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 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 Valerie Robison received an overall combined average grade of 3.18 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 2.66, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.70, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Robison Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.18 2.66 3.70 Sample Size - 120 528 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. (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 Robison’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Robison Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.62 47 2008 2.94 2.07 1 3.80 143 2009 3.19 2.63 32 3.74 120 2010 3.22 2.71 45 3.72 99 2012 3.09 2.64 42 3.54 119 Overall 3.18 2.66 120 3.70 528 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 district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.87, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.30. 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 Robison’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 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Robison Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Robison Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.84 384 73% 3.28 144 27% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112200)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Sample Size = 120 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 13% 19% 33% 11% 3% 22% 2.34 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 23% 44% 19% 6% 6% 3% 2.74 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 15% 31% 22% 14% 7% 12% 2.38 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 28% 31% 22% 9% 7% 4% 2.66 3.29 Overall Case Management 2.53 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 15% 29% 28% 19% 8% 1% 2.24 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 16% 26% 33% 17% 8% 2% 2.26 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 18% 21% 14% 18% 11% 18% 2.19 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 25% 35% 21% 6% 4% 9% 2.79 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.37 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 48% 33% 13% 2% 1% 3% 3.30 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 25% 24% 28% 11% 3% 8% 2.62 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.96 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 53% 33% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.32 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 63% 24% 9% 3% 2% 0% 3.43 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 35% 28% 17% 11% 8% 1% 2.71 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 23% 22% 28% 17% 7% 4% 2.40 3.24 Overall Demeanor 2.97 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 22% 24% 23% 18% 13% 2% 2.25 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 32% 28% 20% 10% 8% 3% 2.68 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 33% 28% 15% 8% 4% 13% 2.87 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.60 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 2.66 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 32% 27% Completely neutral 29% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 5% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 7% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 32% 57% Recommend retain 24% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 20% 9% Recommend not retain 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 20% 6% Total Retain 56% 81% Neither 20% 9% Total Not Retain 25% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 31% 57% Recommend retain 24% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 19% 9% Recommend not retain 5% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 19% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 2% 1% Total Retain 55% 81% Neither 19% 9% Total Not Retain 24% 11% Don't Know 2% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 2.66 Overall Average Grade 3.29 2.53 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.34 case after trial. 3.39 2.74 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 2.38 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.66 3.29 2.37 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2.24 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 2.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 2.19 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2.79 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 2.96 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.30 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 2.62 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie Robison All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie Robison 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 2.97 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.32 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.43 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 2.71 neutral manner. 3.28 2.40 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 2.60 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.25 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.68 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.87 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 27% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 32% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 29% Completely Neutral 47% 5% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 7% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Valerie Robison All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 32% Strongly recommend retain 57% 24% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 20% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Robison Judges* Total Retain 56% 81% 5% Recommend not retain Neither 20% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 25% 11% 20% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 31% Strongly recommend retain 57% 24% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 19% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Robison Judges* 5% Recommend not retain Total Retain 55% 81% 5% Neither 19% 9% 19% Total Not Retain 24% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 2% 1% Don't know enough to make a 2% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie Robison All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 552288)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Sample Size = 528 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 12% 4% 0% 2% 1% 3.73 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 11% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.79 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 82% 11% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.70 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 78% 13% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3.68 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.73 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 13% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3.73 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 12% 2% 1% 3% 4% 3.69 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 6% 2% 0% 2% 41% 3.71 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 80% 11% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3.71 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.71 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.75 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 83% 12% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.77 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 13% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.77 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 68% 22% 5% 1% 1% 3% 3.60 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 11% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.72 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 17% 3% 1% 1% 14% 3.65 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 1% 2% 7% 3.72 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 21% 5% 1% 2% 3% 3.59 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 3% 1% 2% 10% 3.62 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 63% 10% 3% 1% 2% 21% 3.65 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 3% 10% 3.63 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.63 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.70 3.64 * 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison 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 8% 9% Competely neutral 87% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 4% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.12 0.07 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 8% 9% Competely neutral 78% 81% Lenient sentencing total 14% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.04 0.05 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% 74% Recommend retain 19% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 4% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 86% 89% Neither 7% 4% Total Not Retain 7% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 66% 71% Recommend retain 19% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 4% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 2% 4% Total Retain 85% 85% Neither 7% 4% Total Not Retain 7% 7% Don't Know 2% 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.70 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.73 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.73 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.79 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.70 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.68 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.71 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.73 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.69 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.71 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.71 or her case. 3.66 3.76 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.77 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie Robison All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie Robison 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.60 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.72 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.65 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.72 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.59 little wasted time. 3.57 3.63 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.65 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.63 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.12 Valerie Robison 0.07 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 -0.04 Valerie Robison 0.05 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. Valerie Robison All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain 74% 19% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 7% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Robison Judges* 4% Recommend not retain Total Retain 86% 89% 2% Neither 7% 4% Total Not Retain 7% 7% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 66% Strongly recommend retain 71% 19% Recommend retain 14% 7% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 4% Judge Robison Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 85% 85% Neither 7% 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 7% 7% 5% Total DK 2% 4% Don't know enough to make a 2% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie Robison All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 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 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. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 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 2013. 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. 16 ## Page 20 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. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. 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 2013 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 percentages are shown both including and excluding “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 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 17 ## Page 21 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. 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 cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% 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 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. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 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 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. 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 18 ## Page 22 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. 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. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. 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 2013 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 19 ## Page 23 all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “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 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. 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. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. 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 Robison 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 district judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Valerie Robison 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 53 29 0 0 24 45.3% Defense Attorneys 116 61 1 0 54 47.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 55 21 3 0 31 59.6% Other Attorneys Civil 34 17 6 0 11 39.3% Total Attorneys 258 128 10 0 120 48.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 164 78 45 10 31 26.1% Other 6 0 4 1 1 50.0% Law Enforcement 141 56 30 4 51 45.9% Defendant 436 156 241 3 36 18.5% Civil Litigant 98 61 15 0 22 26.5% Witness 2 0 2 0 0 0.0% Other 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Jurors 696 254 49 9 384 59.4% Employees, including Interpreters 3 0 0 1 2 66.7% Total Non-attorneys 1547 605 386 28 528 45.5% Grand Total: 1805 733 396 28 648 46.0% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 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 3130 2013 120 1 996 33.1% Defense Attorneys 4130 2444 84 0 1602 39.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 248 125 13 0 110 46.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4708 2028 213 2 2465 54.8% Other Attorneys Civil 4027 1956 366 2 1703 46.5% GAL 29 12 0 0 17 58.6% Total Attorneys 16272 8578 796 5 6893 44.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 109 66 23 5 15 17.4% Witness 5404 2746 1591 265 802 21.0% Other 832 471 248 10 103 17.6% Law Enforcement 4235 2320 1024 167 724 22.5% Defendant 20502 9362 9533 132 1475 13.4% Civil Litigant 12103 6801 2810 219 2273 24.5% Witness 498 251 99 15 133 33.3% Other 454 196 99 21 138 38.9% Jurors 17494 7070 1191 267 8966 55.0% Employees, including Interpreters 233 68 29 22 114 55.9% Probation Officers 116 42 4 8 62 55.4% Total Non-attorneys 61980 29393 16651 1131 14805 32.7% Grand Total: 78252 37971 17447 1136 21698 35.7% * 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6893 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. 51% 20% 8% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 13% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 11% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 24% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 19% 10% 6% 5% 25% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 10% 5% 3% 17% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 23% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 23% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 19% 10% 5% 4% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.40 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial 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 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.64 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 68% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.63 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.61 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 * 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. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial 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 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.07 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% Competely neutral 81% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.05 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 89% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 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 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 32 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 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 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 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 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last 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 on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 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 34 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 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 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 - 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison, 143 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 109 agreed they had worked with Judge Robison enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 109 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 3.56 Attorneys 2.84 Total Non-Attorneys 3.81 Juror 3.93 Non-Attorney Other* 3.67 Table 1 Judge Valerie Robison Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.56 2.84 3.81 3.93 3.67 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 83% Attorneys 59% Total Non-Attorneys 91% Juror 95% Non-Attorney Other 86% Table 2 Judge Valerie Robison Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 83% 59% 91% 95% 86% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Valerie Robison Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 2.38 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.66 3.76 3.96 3.53 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.96 3.86 3.90 3.81 Diligence 2.77 3.75 3.84 3.64 Demeanor 3.44 3.85 3.98 3.70 Fairness N/A 3.84 3.97 3.69 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 87 2 28 48% 32% Total Non- 905 261 81 16% 21% Attorneys Staff 7 0 4 57% 0% Jurors 288 1 44 18% 14% Other Non- 610 260 33 13% 30% 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 Valerie Robison 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Robison, 41 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 28 agreed they had worked with Judge Robison enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 28 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 Valerie Robison 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 quest ions 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 Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Valerie Robison be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Valerie Robison Total Retain 59% Neither 11% Total Not Retain 29% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 48% 40% 22% 20% 11% 13% 11% 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 Robison All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison 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 2.38 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.86 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 1.64 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.82 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 2.17 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 6 Case Management Judge Valerie All Robison Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Robison Judges Responses: 28 Promptly issuing a decision on the 18% 25% 11% 18% 14% 14% 2.17 3.41 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 39% 29% 18% 4% 11% -- 2.82 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 18% 18% 11% 18% 36% -- 1.64 3.32 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 43% 25% 11% 18% 4% -- 2.86 3.29 cases Case Management Overall Average 2.38 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison 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 2.66 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.50 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.75 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 3.11 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.52 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 28 Robison Judges Being able to identify and 32% 11% 36% 21% -- -- 2.54 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 36% 14% 18% 21% 7% 4% 2.52 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 47% 21% 21% -- 5% 5% 3.11 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 39% 18% 29% 7% 7% -- 2.75 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 36% 18% 21% 11% 14% -- 2.50 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.66 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison 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 2.96 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 2.57 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.36 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 8 Communications Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 28 Robison Judges Making sure all participants 57% 21% 21% -- -- -- 3.36 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 43% 11% 21% 11% 14% -- 2.57 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 2.96 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison 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 3.44 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.18 3.33 Treating participants with respect 3.64 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 9 Demeanor Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 28 Robison Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 61% 32% 4% 4% -- -- 3.50 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 71% 25% -- 4% -- -- 3.64 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 54% 25% 7% 14% -- -- 3.18 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.44 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison 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 2.77 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 3.04 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 2.75 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 2.54 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 10 Diligence Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 28 Robison Judges Using good judgment in application of 32% 21% 21% 18% 7% -- 2.54 3.16 relevant law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 36% 32% 7% 21% 4% -- 2.75 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 46% 21% 21% 11% -- -- 3.04 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.77 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Robison in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 80% 60% 53% 51% 37% 40% 23% 20% 11% 11% 11% 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 Robison All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Robison, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Robison 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 Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison 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 Robison 3.57 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Valerie All Robison Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Robison Judges Responses: 14 Overall performance as a 38% 29% -- -- -- 33% 3.57 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Valerie Robison, 102 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 81 agreed they had worked with Judge Robison enough to evaluate her performance. This report reflects these 81 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 Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison 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 Valerie Robison 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge Valerie Robison Total Retain 91% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 4% Figure 10 100% 80% 72% 74% 60% 40% 19% 20% 12% 5% 6% 3% 3% 1% 6% 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 Robison All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 3.85 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.84 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.81 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.88 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 13 Demeanor Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 81 Robison Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 89% 7% 2% -- -- 1% 3.88 3.66 Treating participants with respect 93% 5% 1% -- 1% -- 3.88 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 88% 9% 2% -- 1% -- 3.81 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 90% 6% 1% 2% -- -- 3.84 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.85 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 3.84 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.84 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.86 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.81 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.86 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 14 Fairness Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 81 Robison Judges Giving participants an 90% 7% 1% 1% -- -- 3.86 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 90% 5% 2% 1% 1% -- 3.81 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 63% 6% -- 1% -- 30% 3.86 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 89% 9% 1% -- 1% -- 3.84 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.84 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 3.86 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.84 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.86 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 15 Communications Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 81 Robison Judges Making sure all participants understand the 91% 5% 4% -- -- -- 3.88 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 90% 7% 1% 1% -- -- 3.86 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 90% 6% 3% -- 1% -- 3.84 3.75 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.86 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 3.75 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.67 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.71 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.80 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.85 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.69 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 16 Diligence Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 81 Robison Judges Beginning court on time 75% 19% 4% -- 1% 1% 3.69 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 90% 5% 3% -- 1% 1% 3.85 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 86% 8% 6% -- -- -- 3.80 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 78% 16% 4% -- 1% 1% 3.71 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 77% 17% 2% -- 2% 1% 3.67 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.75 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 3.76 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.76 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 3.68 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Robison Table 17 Application of Law Judge Valerie Robison All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 79 Robison Judges Giving reasons for rulings 80% 9% 1% -- 1% 9% 3.82 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 72% 5% 2% 2% 2% 16% 3.68 3.56 outside pressure Being able to identify and 84% 6% 2% 2% 1% 4% 3.76 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.76 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Robison is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Robison is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 83% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 10% 3% 4% 5% 5% 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 Robison All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 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 Robison are. If you feel Judge Robison generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 85% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7% 7% 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Robison All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Valerie Robison 28
- 2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVaalleerriiee JJ.. RRoobbiissoonn 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21st Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Valerie J. Robison Mesa County Justice Center P.O. Box 20,000 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Dear Judge Robison: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances, redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Valerie J. Robison September 24, 2009 Page 2 Methodology: The third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee JJ.. RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2200)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Valerie J. Robison Valerie J. All District Sample Size = 20 A B C D Fail DK/NA Robison Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 0% 20% 35% 5% 0% 40% 2.25 3.38 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 20% 30% 35% 5% 10% 0% 2.45 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 5% 40% 25% 15% 5% 10% 2.28 3.19 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 25% 20% 30% 15% 5% 5% 2.47 3.22 Overall Case Management 2.36 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 10% 30% 25% 20% 15% 0% 2.00 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 20% 25% 20% 20% 15% 0% 2.15 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 20% 20% 15% 20% 10% 15% 2.24 2.89 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 26% 32% 32% 5% 0% 5% 2.83 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.31 3.10 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 40% 30% 25% 5% 0% 0% 3.05 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 32% 21% 16% 21% 5% 5% 2.56 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.81 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 45% 30% 20% 0% 5% 0% 3.10 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 55% 35% 5% 0% 5% 0% 3.35 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 26% 21% 21% 26% 5% 0% 2.37 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 25% 20% 25% 15% 5% 10% 2.50 3.21 Overall Demeanor 2.83 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 26% 16% 21% 16% 16% 5% 2.22 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 35% 25% 5% 20% 10% 5% 2.58 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 30% 25% 15% 10% 10% 10% 2.61 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.47 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 2.53 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Valerie J. Robison Valerie J. All District Robison Judges Sample Size = 20 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 39% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 28% Completely neutral 22% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 11% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 50% 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 12% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 31% 7% Total Retain 62% 87% Total Not Retain 37% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 40% 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 20% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 25% 6% Total Retain 50% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 20% 5% Total Not Retain 30% 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Valerie J. Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.53 Overall Average Grade 3.26 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.36 3.30 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.25 case after trial. 3.38 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.45 proceedings. 3.39 2.28 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.19 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.47 3.22 2.31 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.10 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.00 relevant facts. 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.15 3.16 2.24 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.89 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.83 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.07 2.81 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.05 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.56 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.28 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie J. Robison All District Judges Ju 2d00g9 eInt eVrima Jluedirciiael P eJrfo. rmRanoceb Siusrvoeyn 4 ## Page 8 Judge Valerie J. Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.83 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.10 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.46 3.35 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.35 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.37 in a neutral manner. 3.25 2.50 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.21 2.47 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.26 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.22 releveant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.58 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.61 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 39% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 22% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Valerie J. Robison All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Valerie J. Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 50% Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 12% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Dist Judge Robison Judges 6% Total Retain 62% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 37% 13% 6% 31% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 40% Strongly recommend retain in office 68% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Dist 20% Judge Robison Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 50% 83% Undecided 20% 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 30% 12% 6% 25% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie J. Robison All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee JJ.. RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 221100)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Valerie J. Robison Valerie J. All District Sample Size = 210 A B C D Fail DK/NA Robison Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 84% 11% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.79 3.67 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 11% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.81 3.67 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 83% 12% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3.77 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 79% 12% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3.73 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.78 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 82% 11% 0% 2% 1% 3% 3.78 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 82% 10% 0% 1% 1% 5% 3.78 3.60 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 5% 0% 0% 1% 41% 3.80 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 81% 11% 1% 1% 1% 5% 3.78 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.79 3.62 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 13% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.81 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 12% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.80 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.79 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.80 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 70% 21% 3% 0% 0% 5% 3.67 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 84% 11% 1% 1% 0% 3% 3.82 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 66% 14% 1% 0% 1% 18% 3.76 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 79% 11% 2% 1% 0% 7% 3.79 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 20% 2% 1% 0% 4% 3.70 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.75 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 2% 1% 1% 11% 3.69 3.56 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 9% 1% 0% 1% 22% 3.76 3.59 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 10% 1% 0% 2% 12% 3.73 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.73 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.77 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Valerie J. Robison Valerie J. All District Robison Judges Sample Size = 210 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 11% Competely neutral 91% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.09 0.11 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 8% 11% Competely neutral 82% 80% Lenient sentencing total 10% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.06 0.12 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 91% 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 3% 5% Total Retain 97% 93% Total Not Retain 3% 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 85% 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 5% 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 3% 4% Total Retain 90% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 6% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Valerie J. Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.77 Overall Average Grade 3.63 3.78 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.79 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.67 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.81 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.77 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.73 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.55 3.79 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.62 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.78 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.78 case without bias. 3.60 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.80 themselves. 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.78 or her case. 3.64 3.80 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.81 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.69 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.79 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie J. Robison All District Judges Ju 2d00g9 Iente rVima Juledicriaile P eJrfo.r mRanoceb Suisrveoyn 10 ## Page 14 Judge Valerie J. Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.75 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.67 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.82 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.76 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.79 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.70 little wasted time. 3.55 3.73 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.58 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.69 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.76 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.73 relevant facts. 3.58 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.09 Valerie J. Robison 0.11 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.06 Valerie J. Robison 0.12 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Valerie J. Robison All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Valerie J. Robison All District Judges Judge Valerie J. Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 6% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Robison Judges Total Retain 97% 93% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 3% 7% 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 85% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 6% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Robison Judges Total Retain 90% 88% 0% Undecided 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie J. Robison All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 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 District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning district judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in District Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Robison. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names 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. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: 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. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney 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 & 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 Robison is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Valerie J. Robison 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 9 3 0 0 6 66.7% Defense Attorneys 12 7 0 0 5 41.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 11 4 0 0 7 63.6% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 34 14 0 0 20 58.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 60 32 24 1 3 8.3% Other 6 0 4 1 1 50.0% Law Enforcement 82 29 22 1 30 50.0% Defendant 159 61 84 2 12 16.0% Civil Litigant 10 6 1 0 3 33.3% Jurors 313 120 27 5 161 56.3% Total Non-attorneys 630 248 162 10 210 44.9% Grand Total: 664 262 162 10 230 45.8% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre-election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples—the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state’s judicial system. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all district judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all district judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all district judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 3921 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 21% 7% 3% 1% 21% 3.39 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 21% 7% 3% 1% 21% 3.38 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 25% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 26% 11% 4% 2% 13% 3.19 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 43% 26% 11% 4% 2% 13% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 28% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 28% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.28 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 28% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 27% 11% 6% 3% 4% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 29% 20% 11% 6% 4% 29% 2.89 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 30% 22% 10% 4% 3% 31% 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.10 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 46% 26% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 65% 22% 7% 3% 2% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 63% 20% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 22% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.25 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 22% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 51% 26% 11% 5% 3% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 49% 28% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 6% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 20% 8% 4% 2% 16% 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 20% 8% 4% 2% 16% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 3921 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 17850 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 77% 15% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.60 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 7% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.61 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.62 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 15% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.59 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 17850 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 11% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.11 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 11% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.12 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 - 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21st Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Valerie Robison Mesa County Justice Center P.O. Box 20,000 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Dear Judge Robison: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on three 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 appellate judges and third a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into six main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 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 at the back of this report. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Valerie Robison March 30, 2010 Page 2 The fifth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 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 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 Attorneys assigned Judge Valerie Robison an overall average grade1 of 2.62, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Robison an overall average grade of 3.75 resulting in a combined grade of 3.19. The average combined grade for all district judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.48. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Robison Average Grades Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.19 2.62 3.75 Sample Size - 33 276 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Robison’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Robison Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Grade2 Average Grade Average Grade 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 2005 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 2.94 3.19 2.07 2.63 3.62 3.80 3.75 Sample Size - - - - 0 0 1 32 0 47 143 86 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 District judges who were appointed between 2005 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 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 district judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 61%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for district judges was 3.86, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.28. 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 Robison’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 Judge Robison Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.83 3.48 Percent of Sample 75% 25% Sample Size 207 69 District Judge Average 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Robison’s juror and non-juror grades with the all district judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Sample Size = 33 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 3% 21% 36% 3% 3% 33% 2.27 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 21% 33% 33% 3% 6% 3% 2.63 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 9% 42% 24% 9% 6% 9% 2.43 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 24% 24% 24% 15% 6% 6% 2.48 3.25 Overall Case Management 2.45 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 12% 27% 33% 18% 9% 0% 2.15 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 15% 27% 30% 18% 9% 0% 2.21 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 15% 21% 21% 15% 9% 18% 2.22 3.09 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 25% 32% 29% 7% 4% 4% 2.70 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 2.32 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 45% 27% 24% 3% 0% 0% 3.15 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 28% 22% 22% 16% 3% 9% 2.62 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 2.89 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 48% 33% 12% 3% 3% 0% 3.21 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 55% 30% 9% 3% 3% 0% 3.30 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 31% 22% 22% 16% 6% 3% 2.58 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 24% 21% 30% 12% 3% 9% 2.57 3.28 Overall Demeanor 2.92 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 22% 28% 19% 19% 9% 3% 2.35 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 33% 24% 18% 12% 6% 6% 2.71 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 30% 27% 15% 9% 6% 12% 2.76 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 2.61 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 2.62 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Judges Sample Size = 33 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 37% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 33% 27% Completely neutral 19% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 11% 4% 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 48% 74% Somewhat recommend retain 15% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 15% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 22% 6% Total Retain 63% 89% Total Not Retain 37% 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 39% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 12% 14% Undecided or Don't Know 18% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 12% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 18% 6% Total Retain 51% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 18% 4% Total Not Retain 30% 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.62 Overall Average Grade 3.32 Q1. Overall Case Management 2.45 3.34 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 2.27 case after trial. 3.42 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 2.63 proceedings. 3.43 2.43 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 2.48 3.25 2.32 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 2.15 relevant facts. 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.21 3.13 2.22 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.09 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 2.70 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.16 2.89 Q3. Overall Communication 3.44 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.15 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 2.62 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.32 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie Robison All District Judges J 2u01d0 gJuedic Vial aPelreforrmiaen cRe Sourbveyi sReoponrt 6 ## Page 10 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 2.92 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.21 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.51 3.30 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.58 in a neutral manner. 3.32 2.57 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.28 2.61 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.32 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.35 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 2.71 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 2.76 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. 37% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 33% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 19% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 11% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Valerie Robison All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 48% Strongly recommend retain 74% 15% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Dist Judge Robison Judges 15% Total Retain 63% 89% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 37% 11% 5% 22% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 39% Strongly recommend retain 70% 12% Somewhat recommend retain 14% All Dist 18% Judge Robison Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 51% 84% Undecided or DK 18% 4% 12% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 30% 11% 5% 18% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie Robison All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Valerie Robison All Sample Size = 27 Retention No Valerie District Evaluations of Judge Robison = 8 A B C D Fail Grade Robison Judges Judge Robison in terms of overall performance as a judge. 27% 0% 4% 0% 0% 69% 3.75 3.53 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. While 27 out of 29 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee VVaalleerriiee RRoobbiissoonn ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 227766)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Sample Size = 276 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 83% 12% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.78 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 10% 2% 1% 1% 2% 3.80 3.68 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 83% 11% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3.75 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 80% 12% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3.72 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.76 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 82% 12% 0% 1% 1% 3% 3.76 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 82% 10% 1% 1% 2% 4% 3.76 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 5% 0% 0% 1% 42% 3.80 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 10% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3.77 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.77 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 13% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.78 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 84% 11% 2% 1% 0% 2% 3.80 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 0% 2% 3.78 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.79 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 70% 19% 5% 1% 1% 4% 3.65 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 2% 1% 0% 3% 3.80 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 66% 15% 1% 0% 1% 17% 3.73 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 78% 11% 2% 1% 1% 7% 3.78 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 19% 4% 1% 1% 4% 3.65 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.72 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 72% 13% 2% 1% 1% 11% 3.70 3.57 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 65% 8% 1% 0% 2% 22% 3.74 3.60 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 10% 2% 0% 3% 11% 3.72 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.72 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Valerie Robison Valerie Robison All District Judges Sample Size = 276 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 6% 10% Competely neutral 89% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.12 0.08 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 8% 10% Competely neutral 82% 80% Lenient sentencing total 11% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.03 0.07 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 91% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 4% Total Retain 96% 93% Total Not Retain 4% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 86% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 5% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 4% Total Retain 91% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 6% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.75 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.76 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.78 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.80 3.68 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.75 manner. 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.72 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.57 3.77 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.76 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.76 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.80 themselves. 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.77 or her case. 3.65 3.79 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.78 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.78 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Valerie Robison All District Judges J 2u01d0 Jgudeic iaVl Paerlfeormriaenc eR Suorvbeyi Rseoponrt 14 ## Page 18 Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.72 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.65 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.80 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.73 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.78 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.65 little wasted time. 3.55 3.72 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.70 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.74 possible outside pressure. 3.60 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.72 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.12 Valerie Robison 0.08 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.03 Valerie Robison 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Valerie Robison All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15 ## Page 19 Valerie Robison All District Judges Judge Valerie Robison Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Robison be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% All Dist Judge Robison Judges Total Retain 96% 93% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 4% 6% 2% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 5% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 6% All Dist Undecided 6% Judge Robison Judges Total Retain 91% 88% 0% Undecided 6% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 3% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valerie Robison All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the three 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 District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 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 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 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 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 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 data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 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, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 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, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked 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—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 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 divided by the number of possible evaluations. 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. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: All 29 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2010. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning his or her overall performance as a judge. (See Questionnaire section.) The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were asked to write a comment about each district judge. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the district 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 district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, 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 eligible to stand for retention in 2010 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges lists the comments district and appellate justices and judges wrote about the report-justice. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-seven questionnaires were returned, though not all 27 showed grades for every district judge. III 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. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 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. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 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 data only affects the county judge sample in the 2010 reports. 2 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. 2 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, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 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—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—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 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, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 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 Robison 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Judge Valerie Robison 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 15 7 0 0 8 53.3% Defense Attorneys 44 26 0 0 18 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 13 6 0 0 7 53.8% Other Attorneys Civil 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 73 40 0 0 33 45.2% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 115 60 36 6 13 16.5% Other 6 0 4 1 1 50.0% Law Enforcement 88 32 22 2 32 48.5% Defendant 186 67 97 3 19 21.3% Civil Litigant 14 9 2 0 3 25.0% Jurors 393 152 29 5 207 56.9% Employees 3 1 0 1 1 33.3% Total Non-attorneys 805 321 190 18 276 44.9% Grand Total: 878 361 190 18 309 44.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1053 667 26 1 359 35.0% Defense Attorneys 1623 920 42 0 661 41.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 23 14 1 0 8 36.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2540 1157 133 4 1246 51.9% Guardian ad litem 14 5 0 0 9 64.3% Other Attorneys Civil 776 499 21 2 254 33.7% Attorneys, Unknown Role 30 7 5 0 18 72.0% Total Attorneys 6059 3269 228 7 2555 43.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 3572 1855 929 100 688 27.1% Defendant 11205 5065 5122 70 948 15.8% Victim 31 18 7 1 5 21.7% Witness 3941 2016 1271 186 468 18.8% Other 1045 590 309 11 135 18.6% Civil Litigant 8005 4441 1954 117 1493 25.2% Witness 266 133 61 6 66 33.2% Other 195 84 51 6 54 39.1% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 700 328 282 1 89 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 28960 14530 9986 498 3946 20.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 11195 4330 560 132 6173 58.8% Employees 283 113 35 22 113 50.0% Total Other 11507 4445 595 154 6313 57.9% Total 46526 22244 10809 659 12814 35.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 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. None of the three surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, Appellate Judges Regarding District 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 2555 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 20% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.42 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 8% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 25% 10% 4% 2% 14% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 27% 11% 4% 2% 5% 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 26% 10% 4% 2% 3% 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 43% 24% 11% 6% 3% 13% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 39% 21% 10% 5% 4% 20% 3.09 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 31% 20% 8% 3% 2% 36% 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 23% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.55 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 24% 9% 4% 2% 13% 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 21% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 66% 19% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 21% 9% 5% 4% 2% 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 24% 10% 4% 3% 5% 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 25% 9% 4% 2% 5% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 54% 19% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 2555 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 74% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 89% Total Not Retain 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 70% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Undecided or Don't Know 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 4% Total Not Retain 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 30 ## Page 34 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges Average Sample Size = 10232 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.63 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 49% 8% 2% 1% 2% 38% 3.62 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 65% 22% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 67% 16% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 75% 13% 3% 1% 2% 6% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 69% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 15% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 64% 11% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.60 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 13% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 31 ## Page 35 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Judges Grade Sample Size = 10232 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% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.08 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 80% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.07 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Undecided/Don't Know 6% Total Not Retain 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 32 ## Page 36 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges DK/ Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2010. 28% 15% 3% 0% 0% 54% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 37 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 ## Page 42 Using a grade scale, where an “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 circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (continued) No Grade Dennis Hall .................... A B C D F James P. Kelly .............. A B C D F Philip J. McNulty ............ A B C D F Gilbert Martinez ............. A B C D F Stephen M. Munsinger .. A B C D F G. David Miller .............. A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 5th Judicial District Edward D. Bronfin ......... A B C D F R. Thomas Moorhead ... A B C D F Norman D. Haglund ...... A B C D F Karen A. Romeo ........... A B C D F William W. Hood, III ....... A B C D F Michael A. Martinez ....... A B C D F 6th Judicial District .... William D. Robbins ....... A B C D F Gregory G. Lyman ........ A B C D F Donna J. Schmalberger A B C D F Jeffrey R. Wilson ........... A B C D F Herbert L. Stern, III ........ A B C D F 7th Judicial District C. Jean Stewart ............. A B C D F Jeff B. Herron ................ A B C D F Brian Whitney ................ A B C D F 8th Judicial District David B. Woods ............ A B C D F Jolene C. Blair ............... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District Terence Gilmore ........... A B C D F Leslie J. Gerbracht ........ A B C D F Daniel J. Kaup ............... A B C D F 4th Judicial District Gregory M. Lammons ... A B C D F David A. Gilbert ............. A B C D F Stephen J. Schapanski . A B C D F Deborah J. Grohs .......... A B C D F 9th Judicial District Barney Iuppa ................. A B C D F Gail Nichols ................... A B C D F 1 ## Page 43 10th Judicial District 20th Judicial District No Grade No Grade Thomas B. Flesher ........ A B C D F Lael E. Montgomery ...... A B C D F Jill S. Mattoon ................ A B C D F 21st Judicial District Larry C. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Dick Gurley ................... A B C D F 11th Judicial District Valerie J. Robison ......... A B C D F Stephen A. Groome ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Sharon L. Hansen ......... A B C D F Martin A. Gonzales ........ A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F 13th Judicial District (None) 14th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a sheet Mary C. Hoak ................ A B C D F for comments you would like to make about any 15th Judicial District of these district Judges. Stanley A. Brinkley ........ A B C D F 16th Judicial District Michael A. Schiferl ........ A B C D F Thank You. 17th Judicial District John T. Bryan ................ A B C D F C. Scott Crabtree .......... A B C D F Katherine R. Delgado .... A B C D F Thomas R. Ensor .......... A B C D F F. Michael Goodbee ...... A B C D F Patrick T. Murphy .......... A B C D F C. Vincent Phelps, Jr. .... A B C D F Jill-Ellyn Straus .............. A B C D F 18th Judicial District Angela Arkin .................. A B C D F Richard B. Caschette .... A B C D F Timothy L. Fasing .......... A B C D F Jeffrey K. Holmes .......... A B C D F Carlos Armando Samour,Jr. A B C D F William B. Sylvester ...... A B C D F Elizabeth Ann Weishaupl A B C D F 19th Judicial District Julie C. Hoskins ............ A B C D F Daniel Maus .................. A B C D F Thomas J. Quammen .... A B C D F 2 ## Page 44 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 45 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 4
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
- 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026