← All judges

Carl W. Ross

Trial Court · Crowley · Crowley

Meets Standards(Retain)4 cycles on record

Evaluation history

  • 2002 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Crowley · Crowley
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Sixteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Carl W. Ross BE RETAINED. Judge Ross was appointed to the bench of the Crowley County Court in September 1987, and has served as the Crowley County Judge since that time. Judge Ross has not graduated from law school and was never a practicing attorney prior to his appointment to the bench. Prior to being appointed to the Crowley County Court bench, Judge Ross was a real estate appraiser and consultant specializing in appraisal of agricultural and commercial land. Judge Ross has been active in his community. He has been a member of the Lions Club for ten years, has been a member of the Crowley County School Board, was secretary of the Crowley County Economic Development Committee for five years and participated in the Boy Scouts as a leader for five years. He has been a coach for the past four years with the Girls Baseball Association. Judge Ross believes that everyone should contribute to the community in which they live. While Judge Ross is one of only a few county court judges who do not have a formal law education, the Commission was impressed that Judge Ross attempts to educate himself on the law at all possible times. Judge Ross received high ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in virtually every category, particularly in the areas of being courteous toward parties and attorneys, treating all parties equally and maintaining proper judicial temperament. Of the attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 78% recommended that Judge Ross be retained in office, 11% recommended that he not be retained and 11% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the questionnaire, 82% recommended that Judge Ross be retained in office, 3% recommended that he not be retained and 15% had no opinion.
  • 1998 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Crowley · Crowley
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1998 Recommendation: Retain The Sixteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Crowley County Judge Carl W. Ross BE RETAINED. As a lay Judge, Judge Ross is highly motivated and conscientious as to his duties. He has developed a continuing understanding of the law and does not refrain from seeking counsel of full-time Judges as needed. He is regarded as courteous, prompt and efficient in the handling of his Court. He is regarded as being a good listener and attentive to details being asserted. Without exception, the attorney evaluations unanimously recommend retention of Judge Ross. 85.7% of court and probation employees recommended retention. 85.7% of litigants expressed an opinion or favored retention. 75.0% of law enforcement personnel recommended retention. 66.7% of victims recommended retention. Judge Ross acknowledges an increasing case load and a continuing and growing responsibility, in light of his 30% part-time status. Judge Ross acknowledges a need to continue to expand his knowledge of the law, and to continue to provide the county court system as a fair and impartial tribunal for the persons living within his county.
  • 1994 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Crowley · Crowley
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1994 Recommendation: Retain The Judicial Performance Commission for the 16th Judicial District has voted to recommend that Crowley County Judge Carl Ross be retained in office for another four years by the voters of Crowley County this fall. Carl Ross moved to Crowley County in 1967. Ross attended Otero Junior College for two years, then completed his degree in business management at Metro State College. After some experience in retain sales, he was appointed Crowley County Assessor in 1976, then was elected to a four year term. After five years as county assessor, he resigned to take a position as a real estate appraiser with the Colorado Division of Property Taxation. In 1987, he was appointed to the Crowley County bench, a position that was then 20% of full time. Subsequent to the building of the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, the position has become a 30% of full time. He has averaged 410 cases per year. In addition to being county judge, he continues to be a consultant to county assessors, does some private appraisals and is an electronics distributor. He is not an attorney. Judge Ross estimated 17% of his load are civil cases (about half of these being small claims cases), about 20% are misdemeanor cases, 34% are traffic offense cases and 29% are traffic infraction cases. In about 85% of the cases he hears, the defendant represents himself or herself. Attorneys agreed he displays a sense of justice, treats all parties equally, has appropriate demeanor, maintains courtroom control, is courteous, displays compassion, works diligently, gives prompt rulings and decisions, is punctual with proceedings and should BE RETAINED. Law enforcement officers recommended his retention. In response to questions, Judge Ross said he does not generally find Crowley County’s smaller population causes conflicts of interest for him, some younger repeat offenders appear to lack respect for anyone, but he tries to treat each case on its own merits. As a part-time, non-attorney judge, he finds the key is good common sense. The most difficult part is getting past the language of the law. Over the five years he has been on the bench, some of the changed he has noted include: more problems with youth, a breakdown of families that has meant less discipline at home, and the development of useful public service as a good tool in sentencing youths. Alcohol plays a big role in traffic offenses he sees, he feels strongly that punishment is not effective unless the public knows what to expect and the administration of punishment is immediate. Collections and restitutions are a serious problem. The most rewarding part of being a judge are those times where he is able to help a young person get their attitude and life turned around, to do their part to make society a better place for everyone.
  • 1990 retention cycle
    Trial Court · Crowley · Crowley
    Meets Standards(Retain)
    Retention Year: 1990 Recommendation: Retain Judicial Performance Commission’s recommendation: Should Be Retained. Judge Ross spent two years at Otero Junior College and also studied at Metro State College in Denver and pursued studies in aviation management and business management. He and his wife have five grown children. Ross has worked mostly in appraisal fields since his college days. He was the Crowley County assessor for five years, and he has worked as an appraisal consultant for five years for the state of Colorado. He has worked as a free-lance appraiser and has subcontracted for the auditor of assessors in the state of Colorado for agricultural purposes. He travels around the state helping audit the local count assessors. The Crowley County Court has been classified by the state legislature to be a part-time county court. The judge’s salary is set by the number of cases he or she finishes each year. In 1988, the actual caseload for Crowley County involved 446 new filings. Since Crowley County is a class D county, the legislature has not required that the county judge be an attorney. While Ross in not an attorney, he has attended the National Judicial College for training as a non-attorney judge and has received substantial additional training from the state of Colorado. Ross spends about two days a week as a judge and says he enjoys the work very much. He says he tries hard to educate himself on legal issues and feels one of the strengths is a desire to learn. He says he does not dislike many aspects of his job but finds the most distasteful portion is handling family disturbances. Attorney evaluations of Ross were returned by seven lawyers. Favorable responses were given in all categories, including integrity, legal ability, communication skills, control over judicial procedures, docket management, punctuality and sentencing. Ross has not had the opportunity to handle a jury trial, so no juror questionnaires were returned. The tree questionnaires returned by three court clerks and probations officers who work with the county court all were favorable. Two of the three law enforcement officials recommended Ross be retained. The third had no opinion, saying he had the judge was too lenient. There were no other negative comments on that questionnaire, however.

Surveys & reports

  • 2002 cycle
    • 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
      Read full retention survey textexpand
      ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Carl W. Ross Crowley County Courthouse 110 East 6th Ordway, CO 81063 Dear Judge Ross: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: • Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. • Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. • Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. • Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Carl W. Ross Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Ross on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 65% B 33% 22% 21% C 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Ross on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 61% B 22% 20% 22% C 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 11% 2% 3% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Ross on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 55% 48% B 22% 17% 14% C 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 33% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 67% 63% B 44% 15% 12% C 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 12% 19% Average Grade 3.6 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 69% 66% B 44% 16% 14% C 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 8% 12% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 70% 66% B 33% 14% 13% C 11% 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 10% 15% Average Grade 3.4 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade B+ A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 66% 65% B 33% 15% 13% C 11% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 13% Average Grade 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Ross on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 60% 60% B 22% 18% 17% C 9% 8% D 22% 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 4% 5% Average Grade 3.1 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 58% 51% B 22% 14% 11% C 11% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 11% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Ross on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 56% 59% B 22% 15% 12% C 6% 4% D 11% 2% 1% Fail 11% 3% 2% No Grade 18% 21% Average Grade 3.0 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Ross on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 29% 37% B 33% 22% 23% C 11% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 37% 27% Average Grade 3.4 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Ross on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 51% 54% B 44% 30% 28% C 11% 10% 9% D 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 3.3 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Ross on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 53% 54% B 44% 27% 26% C 22% 10% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 7% Average Grade 3.1 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Ross on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 62% 64% B 33% 21% 21% C 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Ross on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 57% 57% B 44% 22% 22% C 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Ross on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 47% 46% B 44% 27% 27% C 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 11% 8% 8% Average Grade 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Ross on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 51% 54% B 44% 27% 28% C 11% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Ross on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 53% 54% B 33% 24% 25% C 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 5% 5% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Ross on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 56% 58% B 44% 25% 23% C 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Ross on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 56% 48% 49% B 22% 18% 18% C 11% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 11% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Ross on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 35% 33% B 11% 14% 13% C 11% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 11% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Ross on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 47% 53% B 33% 28% 25% C 22% 12% 9% D 11% 4% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Ross on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 44% 48% 49% B 22% 24% 25% C 22% 8% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 11% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Ross on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 40% 44% B 33% 30% 29% C 33% 13% 12% D 6% 5% Fail 4% 4% No Grade 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Ross on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 33% 49% 50% B 44% 21% 20% C 22% 9% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% No Grade 14% 15% Average Grade 3.1 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Carl W. Ross Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Ross be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 78% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 11% 11% 11% No opinion 11% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Ross on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 65% 67% B 17% 20% 19% C 5% 7% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Ross on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 49% 47% B 15% 16% 15% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 8% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 63% 65% B 15% 15% 14% C 1% 4% 4% D 1% 1% 1% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 6% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 65% 67% B 15% 16% 16% C 3% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 64% 67% B 17% 16% 16% C 1% 6% 5% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 64% 66% B 14% 16% 15% C 1% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 6% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Ross on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 63% 65% B 17% 16% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 5% 4% 4% No Grade 5% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Ross on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 45% 43% B 13% 13% 12% C 1% 5% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 4% 4% 3% No Grade 6% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Ross on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 60% 63% B 12% 16% 16% C 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 22% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Ross on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 68% 70% B 22% 20% 19% C 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Ross on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 73% 67% 69% B 15% 19% 18% C 4% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Ross on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 78% 69% 72% B 14% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Ross on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 64% 66% B 14% 18% 17% C 1% 6% 5% D 3% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Ross on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 55% 56% B 23% 23% 22% C 5% 9% 8% D 1% 2% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 8% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Ross on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 59% 55% 57% B 26% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 9% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Ross on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 61% 64% B 19% 19% 18% C 3% 7% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 6% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Ross on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 75% 60% 62% B 14% 17% 16% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 6% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Ross on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 64% 67% B 18% 17% 16% C 5% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 8% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Ross on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 74% 60% 62% B 12% 19% 18% C 3% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 9% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Ross on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 53% 55% B 10% 15% 14% C 6% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 3% No Grade 13% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Carl W. Ross Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Ross be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Ross Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 82% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 3% 9% 8% No opinion 15% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Carl W. Ross Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 1 1 100.0% Attorney For Defendant 10 5 3 2 100.0% Attorney for Plaintiff 4 3 1 100.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 15 9 3 3 100.0% Law Enforcement 22 10 5 3 4 66.7% Social Services Caseworker Employee 8 7 1 87.5% Defendant 209 37 100 56 16 27.0% Plaintiff 28 15 6 5 2 71.4% Juror 6 4 2 66.7% Victim 9 1 2 5 1 33.3% Other 21 4 11 1 5 26.7% Sub Total: 303 78 127 70 28 38.0% Total: 318 87 127 73 31 40.7% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 16

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