Carlos Armando Samour Jr.

Evaluation history

• 2020 retention cycle

  Supreme Court

  Commission vote: 11 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 73.5% yes

  1,966,512 yes · 710,863 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 11-0.  The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Justice Samour has been on the Colorado Supreme Court for a little over two years and this is his first retention evaluation.  The Commission finds that Justice Samour is courteous to attorneys and treats parties equally without regard to race, sex, or economic status.  He has quickly adapted to the responsibilities of a Colorado Supreme Court justice, demonstrates an admirable work ethic, and issues decisions in a timely manner.  During oral arguments he allows the parties to present their positions, is respectful of their allotted time, and asks them insightful questions.  His opinions are well organized, and he has a creative writing style that keeps the reader’s interest without compromising clarity.  The Commission believes that Justice Samour is a valuable addition to the Colorado Supreme Court. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Justice Samour, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges.  One survey question asked whether Justice Samour met judicial performance standards.  Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 69% answered yes, 13% answered no, and 19% had no opinion.  Of the judges who responded to that question, 93% answered yes and 7% answered no. A total of 16 attorneys and 62 judges responded to the survey.
• 2016 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 72.2% yes

  274,878 yes · 105,714 no50% needed to retain
  Retention 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 Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Chief Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. BE RETAINED Chief Judge Samour has resided in Colorado with his parents and his 11 siblings since 1979. Although Chief Judge Samour and his family faced great obstacles during his childhood, he excelled academically. He graduated with honors from the University of Colorado at Denver, and later earned his Juris Doctorate with honors from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Chief Judge Samour has also excelled professionally. After law school, he completed a one-year judicial clerkship with Judge Robert McWilliams of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Thereafter, he worked for five years with the Denver law firm, Holland and Hart. In 1996, he joined the Denver District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted cases until 2006. In January 2007, he was appointed as a district court judge, and on July 1, 2014, he was named Chief Judge. During the current term, Chief Judge Samour presided in perhaps the most complicated criminal case in Colorado history. The Aurora theater shooting trial included 24 counts of first-degree murder, 140 counts of attempted first degree murder, and one count of possession or control of explosive or incendiary devices. He was highly noted for his professionalism, efficiency, and trial management during the over two-year process of the case. The Commission conducted extensive research in making this recommendation of retention, including the use of surveys, interviews of people who appear in his courtroom, observations, review of his caseload data, review of the judge’s self-evaluation and his written orders, and an interview. The vast majority of Chief Judge Samour’s survey scores are outstanding. Evaluators remarked that he is hard working, diligent, and even keeled. He was also noted for having a strong command of legal principles and being a fair and just arbiter. As an administrator, Chief Judge Samour has improved the efficiency of the district court civil, domestic relations, and criminal dockets. The sample size of attorneys who completed surveys totaled only 6 people; therefore, the Commission finds that the results are too small to be given much weight. With that being said, 93% of all those who completed surveys recommended retention. This includes 67% of the 6 attorneys who completed the survey. Of the 22 non-attorneys who completed surveys, 100% recommended retention. Of the 9 jurors who completed the survey, 100% recommended retention. Of the 21 appellate judges who evaluated Chief Judge Samour, 90% gave him an “A” grade and 10% scored him a “B” grade, for a total rating of 3.9 on a scale of 1 to 4. An appellate judge noted his exemplary analytical skills, while another characterized his handling of the Aurora theater shooting trial with “such remarkable skill and grace” as “a singular achievement.” Chief Judge Samour’s breadth of experience, his judicial temperament, and his commitment to serve the Eighteenth Judicial District with honor and integrity are assets. Therefore, the Commission highly recommends his retention.
• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 62.2% yes

  154,518 yes · 93,982 no50% needed to retain
  Retention 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 Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. BE RETAINED. Judge Samour was born in El Salvador. In 1979, at age 13, Judge Samour moved with his family to the United States. Judge Samour is a graduate of Columbine High School and graduated with honors from the University of Colorado at Denver with a degree in psychology. Judge Samour received his law degree from the University of Denver. Following his graduation from law school Judge Samour completed a one-year judicial clerkship with Judge Robert McWilliams of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Samour was in private practice for five years with the firm Holland & Hart in Denver, and then served as a Deputy District Attorney for ten years in Denver. Judge Samour was appointed a District Judge in 2006 and took the bench in 2007. Judge Samour presides over both civil and criminal cases. The Commission conducted extensive research in making this recommendation of retention, including the use of surveys conducted on the judge, interviews of people who regularly appear in his courtroom, an interview of the judge, personal observations of the judge, review of his caseload data, review of the judges’ self-evaluation and studies of his written orders. Judge Samour’s survey scores are very good. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike, including members of this Commission, who have observed Judge Samour in his courtroom, have found him to be very friendly, efficient and professional. He is praised for his knowledge of the law and his fairness. Judge Samour volunteers his time as a Spanish language presenter for the “Our Courts” program, a program that explains the workings of the state courts to the public. Judge Samour also assists in planning the judicial district’s annual continuing judicial education conference. Though Judge Samour has only been on the bench for a relatively short time, the Commission is impressed with Judge Samour’s broad background in both civil and criminal law and feels that he has proven himself an asset to this judicial district and will continue to grow as a judge. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 87% recommended to retain, 6% not to retain, and 8% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 95% recommended to retain and 6% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 95% recommended to retain, 1% not to retain and 4% did not express an opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 99% recommended to retain and 1% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate 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 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney .10 Methodology and How to Read Results .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Samour, 45 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 45 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 3.8 3.6 3 2 1 0 Justice Samour All Appellate Judges All Appellate Justice Samour Judges Overall Grade 3.8 3.6 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 95% 92% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 11% 7% 5% 5% 2% 0% Justice Samour All Appellate Judges Justice Samour All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Justice Justice Appellate Appellate Samour Samour Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 100% 82% 95% 92% standards No, does not meet 0% 11% 5% 5% performance standards No opinion 0% 7% 0% 2% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 General 3.6 4.0 Writing 3.3 3.7 Judge Evaluation 3.6 Justice Samour All Appellate Judges All Justice Appellate Samour Judges General 4.0 3.6 Writing 4.0 3.3 Judge Evaluation 3.7 3.6 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 23 51% 26% 6 Judges 55 27% 71% 39 In addition to the responses above, Justice Samour received 0 responses 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 Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Samour Overall 4.0 Appellate Judges Overall 3.6 Justice Samour Appellate Number of Responses Overall Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 4.0 3.4 3 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 4.0 3.7 3 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 4.0 3.7 3 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 4.0 3.7 3 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.0 4.0 3 Being prepared for oral argument 4.0 3.6 3 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Samour Overall 4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Justice Samour Appellate Judges Number of Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 4 3.4 3 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 4 3.3 3 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 4 3.4 3 Making decisions without regard to possible 4 3.5 2 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 4 3.2 3 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 4 3.4 3 not be decided 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Samour Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.6 Justice Appellate Number of Samour Judges Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.8 3.6 36 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.9 3.6 36 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.8 3.6 33 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.7 3.7 38 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.7 3.6 38 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.7 3.5 34 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.8 3.7 37 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.9 3.9 37 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Samour, 45 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 45responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates 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%. 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. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 10 ## Page 11 c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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 2018 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. 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, 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 Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. All 179 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 15 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving interim reports for a total of 2,685 invitations sent. A total of 671 responses were received for a response rate of 25%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving interim reports in 2019. All 28 appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 15 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 405 survey invitations sent. A total of 147 responses were received for a response rate of 36%. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using Qualtrics 360 research software. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on February 1st, 2019 with reminders sent on February 6th and 19th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 21st, 2019. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using Qualtrics 360 research software. A single email invitation was sent on February 6th, 2019. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 21st, 2019. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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 2018 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. 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 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 12 ## Page 13 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 Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 45 23 0 6 26% Judges 206 55 0 39 71% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 14
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report Supreme 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 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . 10 Methodology and How to Read Results . 10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations . 12 Methodology and How to Read Results . 12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Justice Samour, 16 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 16 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 2 1 0 Justice Samour Justice Samour Overall Grade 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 93% 80% 69% 60% 40% 19% 20% 13% 7% 0% 0% Justice Samour Justice Samour Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 69% 93% standards No, does not meet 13% 7% performance standards No opinion 19% 0% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Justice Samour 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 General 3.7 Writing 3.5 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 Justice Samour Justice Samour General 3.7 Writing 3.5 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 42 23% 38% 16 Judges 62 29% - - In addition to the responses above, Justice Samour received 0 responses 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Justice Samour Overall 3.7 Justice Samour Number of Responses Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.5 15 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.8 16 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.8 15 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.7 16 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.0 10 Being prepared for oral argument 3.5 16 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Samour Overall 3.5 Justice Samour Number of Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.2 11 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.2 11 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.9 14 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.6 14 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3.3 15 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.3 14 not be decided 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Justice Samour Overall 3.6 Justice Number of Samour Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.5 54 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.6 54 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.7 48 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.7 53 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.5 54 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.4 54 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.8 52 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.8 52 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Justice Samour, 16 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 16responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 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 18% 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 29%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 10 ## Page 11 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 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. All 190 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 4 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports for a total of 760 invitations sent. A total of 250 responses were received for a response rate of 33%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving retention reports in 2020. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 5 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 116 survey invitations sent. A total of [NUMRESP] responses were received for a response rate of [RR}. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 27th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 28th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. 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 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 12 ## Page 13 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. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 184 42 0 16 38% Judges 217 62 0 62 29% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Justice Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 14
• 2016 cycle
  • 2015 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee CCaarrllooss AArrmmaannddoo SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Judge Samour: 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 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 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 CCaarrllooss AArrmmaannddoo SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2244)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Sample Size = 24 A B C D Fail DK/NA Armando Judges Samour, Jr. 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 39% 13% 22% 0% 0% 26% 3.24 3.38 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 58% 29% 12% 0% 0% 0% 3.46 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 29% 12% 0% 4% 8% 3.23 3.19 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 42% 29% 12% 8% 0% 8% 3.14 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.27 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 46% 38% 12% 0% 4% 0% 3.21 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 50% 25% 21% 0% 4% 0% 3.17 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 30% 13% 17% 9% 9% 22% 2.61 2.89 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 37% 16% 26% 0% 0% 21% 3.13 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.03 3.10 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 58% 33% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 32% 26% 11% 0% 0% 32% 3.31 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 50% 42% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.42 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 54% 21% 21% 4% 0% 0% 3.25 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 38% 17% 33% 4% 4% 4% 2.83 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 29% 42% 8% 8% 0% 12% 3.05 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.14 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 38% 38% 12% 8% 4% 0% 2.96 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 62% 25% 4% 0% 8% 0% 3.33 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 57% 4% 13% 4% 4% 17% 3.26 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.18 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.18 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Armando Judges Sample Size = 24 Samour, Jr. Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 28% Completely neutral 24% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 24% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 12% 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 67% 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 24% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 7% Total Retain 91% 87% Total Not Retain 10% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 58% 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 21% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 12% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 6% Total Retain 79% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 12% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.18 Overall Average Grade 3.26 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.27 3.30 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.24 case after trial. 3.38 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.46 proceedings. 3.39 3.23 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.19 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.14 3.22 3.03 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.10 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.21 relevant facts. 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.17 3.16 2.61 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.89 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.13 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.07 3.41 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.28 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge C 20a09r lInotesrim AJurdimciala Penrfdormoa nSce aSumrveoy ur, Jr. 4 ## Page 8 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.14 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.42 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.46 3.25 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.35 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.83 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.05 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.21 3.18 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.26 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.96 releveant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.33 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.26 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. 18% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 24% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 24% Completely Neutral 46% 24% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 12% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Samour, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 24% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Judge Samour, All Dist Jr. Judges 5% Total Retain 91% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 10% 13% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 58% Strongly recommend retain in office 68% 21% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Judge Samour, All Dist 12% Jr. Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 79% 83% Undecided 12% 5% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 12% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCaarrllooss AArrmmaannddoo SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 220011)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Sample Size = 201 A B C D Fail DK/NA Armando Judges Samour, Jr. 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 87% 11% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.84 3.67 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 89% 8% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.87 3.67 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 90% 7% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.87 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 87% 8% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3.83 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.85 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 84% 9% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3.83 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 84% 8% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3.83 3.60 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 6% 1% 0% 0% 41% 3.82 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 7% 2% 0% 1% 8% 3.82 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.83 3.62 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 89% 7% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.87 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 87% 10% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.86 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 90% 8% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.89 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.87 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 47% 32% 16% 1% 0% 4% 3.30 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 84% 11% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 16% 4% 0% 0% 11% 3.74 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 83% 11% 2% 0% 0% 5% 3.86 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 61% 25% 8% 1% 0% 6% 3.54 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 77% 11% 3% 1% 1% 8% 3.77 3.56 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 69% 8% 1% 1% 2% 20% 3.79 3.59 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 81% 9% 1% 1% 1% 8% 3.82 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.79 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.79 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Armando Judges Sample Size = 201 Samour, Jr. 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 11% Competely neutral 89% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.11 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 10% 11% Competely neutral 84% 80% Lenient sentencing total 5% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.16 0.12 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 95% 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 3% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% 5% Total Retain 98% 93% Total Not Retain 2% 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 92% 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 3% 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% 4% Total Retain 95% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 6% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.79 Overall Average Grade 3.63 3.85 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.84 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.67 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.87 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.87 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.83 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.55 3.83 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.62 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.83 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.83 case without bias. 3.60 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.82 themselves. 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.82 or her case. 3.64 3.87 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.87 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.69 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.86 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.89 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge C20a09r Inlotersim JAudricmial Paenrfodrmoan cSe Saumrveyour, Jr. 10 ## Page 14 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.30 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.74 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.86 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.54 little wasted time. 3.55 3.79 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.58 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.77 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.79 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.82 relevant facts. 3.58 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.11 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 0.11 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.16 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 0.12 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Samour, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 95% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Judge Samour, All Dist Jr. Judges Total Retain 98% 93% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 2% 7% 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 92% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 4% Judge Samour, All Dist Undecided 6% Jr. Judges Total Retain 95% 88% 1% Undecided 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 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 Samour. 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 Samour 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 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 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 14 5 2 0 7 58.3% Defense Attorneys 15 6 0 0 9 60.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 11 5 1 0 5 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 46 18 4 0 24 57.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 84 34 37 3 10 21.3% Other 83 51 25 1 6 10.3% Law Enforcement 201 131 49 0 21 13.8% Defendant 209 78 120 1 10 11.2% Civil Litigant 9 4 5 0 0 0.0% Jurors 224 65 4 1 154 70.0% Total Non-attorneys 810 363 240 6 201 35.3% Grand Total: 856 381 244 6 225 36.8% 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
  • 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Structured scores pending

    Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.

• 2010 cycle
  • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee CCaarrllooss AArrmmaannddoo SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Judge Samour: 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 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 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 CCaarrllooss AArrmmaannddoo SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2244)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Sample Size = 24 A B C D Fail DK/NA Armando Judges Samour, Jr. 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 39% 13% 22% 0% 0% 26% 3.24 3.38 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 58% 29% 12% 0% 0% 0% 3.46 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 29% 12% 0% 4% 8% 3.23 3.19 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 42% 29% 12% 8% 0% 8% 3.14 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.27 3.30 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 46% 38% 12% 0% 4% 0% 3.21 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 50% 25% 21% 0% 4% 0% 3.17 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 30% 13% 17% 9% 9% 22% 2.61 2.89 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 37% 16% 26% 0% 0% 21% 3.13 3.07 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.03 3.10 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 58% 33% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.50 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 32% 26% 11% 0% 0% 32% 3.31 3.28 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 50% 42% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.42 3.46 4b. Treating parties with respect. 54% 21% 21% 4% 0% 0% 3.25 3.35 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 38% 17% 33% 4% 4% 4% 2.83 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 29% 42% 8% 8% 0% 12% 3.05 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.14 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 38% 38% 12% 8% 4% 0% 2.96 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 62% 25% 4% 0% 8% 0% 3.33 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 57% 4% 13% 4% 4% 17% 3.26 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.18 3.26 Overall Average Grade: 3.18 3.26 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Armando Judges Sample Size = 24 Samour, Jr. Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 28% Completely neutral 24% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 24% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know/not sure 12% 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 67% 71% Somewhat recommend retain in office 24% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 7% Total Retain 91% 87% Total Not Retain 10% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 58% 68% Somewhat recommend retain in office 21% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 12% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 6% Total Retain 79% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 12% 5% Total Not Retain 8% 12% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.18 Overall Average Grade 3.26 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.27 3.30 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.24 case after trial. 3.38 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.46 proceedings. 3.39 3.23 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.19 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.14 3.22 3.03 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.10 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.21 relevant facts. 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.17 3.16 2.61 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.89 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.13 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.07 3.41 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.28 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge C 20a09r lInotesrim AJurdimciala Penrfdormoa nSce aSumrveoy ur, Jr. 4 ## Page 8 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.14 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.42 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.46 3.25 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.35 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.83 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.05 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.21 3.18 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.26 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.96 releveant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.33 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.26 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. 18% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 24% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 24% Completely Neutral 46% 24% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 12% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Samour, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain in office 71% 24% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Judge Samour, All Dist Jr. Judges 5% Total Retain 91% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 10% 13% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 58% Strongly recommend retain in office 68% 21% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Judge Samour, All Dist 12% Jr. Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 79% 83% Undecided 12% 5% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 12% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCaarrllooss AArrmmaannddoo SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 220011)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Sample Size = 201 A B C D Fail DK/NA Armando Judges Samour, Jr. 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 87% 11% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.84 3.67 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 89% 8% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.87 3.67 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 90% 7% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.87 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 87% 8% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3.83 3.55 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.85 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 84% 9% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3.83 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 84% 8% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3.83 3.60 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 6% 1% 0% 0% 41% 3.82 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 7% 2% 0% 1% 8% 3.82 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.83 3.62 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 89% 7% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.87 3.69 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 87% 10% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.86 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 90% 8% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3.89 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.87 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 47% 32% 16% 1% 0% 4% 3.30 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 84% 11% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 16% 4% 0% 0% 11% 3.74 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 83% 11% 2% 0% 0% 5% 3.86 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 61% 25% 8% 1% 0% 6% 3.54 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 77% 11% 3% 1% 1% 8% 3.77 3.56 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 69% 8% 1% 1% 2% 20% 3.79 3.59 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 81% 9% 1% 1% 1% 8% 3.82 3.58 Overall Application of Law 3.79 3.58 Overall Average Grade: 3.79 3.63 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Carlos All District Armando Judges Sample Size = 201 Samour, Jr. 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% 11% Competely neutral 89% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.11 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 10% 11% Competely neutral 84% 80% Lenient sentencing total 5% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.16 0.12 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 95% 87% Somewhat recommend retain in office 3% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% 5% Total Retain 98% 93% Total Not Retain 2% 7% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 92% 82% Somewhat recommend retain in office 3% 6% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% 4% Total Retain 95% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 6% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.79 Overall Average Grade 3.63 3.85 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.84 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.67 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.87 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.87 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.83 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.55 3.83 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.62 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.83 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.83 case without bias. 3.60 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.82 themselves. 3.61 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.82 or her case. 3.64 3.87 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.87 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.69 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.86 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.89 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge C20a09r Inlotersim JAudricmial Paenrfodrmoan cSe Saumrveyour, Jr. 10 ## Page 14 Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.30 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.74 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.86 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.54 little wasted time. 3.55 3.79 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.58 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.77 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.79 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.82 relevant facts. 3.58 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.11 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 0.11 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.16 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 0.12 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Samour, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 95% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Judge Samour, All Dist Jr. Judges Total Retain 98% 93% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 2% 7% 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 92% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 3% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 4% Judge Samour, All Dist Undecided 6% Jr. Judges Total Retain 95% 88% 1% Undecided 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 2% 6% 1% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 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 Samour. 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 Samour 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 Carlos Armando Samour, Jr. 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 14 5 2 0 7 58.3% Defense Attorneys 15 6 0 0 9 60.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 4 2 0 0 2 50.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 11 5 1 0 5 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 46 18 4 0 24 57.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 84 34 37 3 10 21.3% Other 83 51 25 1 6 10.3% Law Enforcement 201 131 49 0 21 13.8% Defendant 209 78 120 1 10 11.2% Civil Litigant 9 4 5 0 0 0.0% Jurors 224 65 4 1 154 70.0% Total Non-attorneys 810 363 240 6 201 35.3% Grand Total: 856 381 244 6 225 36.8% 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 textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee CCaarrllooss AA.. SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Arapahoe County Justice Center 7325 S. Potomac St. Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Judge Samour: 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. Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 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 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. an overall average grade1 of 3.38, and non-attorneys assigned Judge Samour an overall average grade of 3.79 resulting in a combined grade of 3.59. 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 Samour Average Grades Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.59 3.38 3.79 Sample Size - 37 246 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 Samour’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Samour 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 3.43 3.93 3.56 3.09 4 3.4 3.77 3.85 3.72 Sample Size - - - - 0 6 1 30 0 79 96 71 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 Samour’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 Samour Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.89 3.45 Percent of Sample 76% 24% Sample Size 187 59 District Judge Average 3.86 3.28 Table 3 Judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Samour’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 CCaarrllooss AA.. SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3377)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Carlos A. All District Sample Size = 37 A B C D Fail DK/NA Samour, Jr. Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 47% 11% 17% 0% 0% 25% 3.41 3.42 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 68% 22% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.57 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 11% 0% 3% 16% 3.35 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 49% 24% 14% 5% 0% 8% 3.26 3.25 Overall Case Management 3.40 3.34 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 24% 11% 0% 3% 0% 3.43 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 54% 24% 16% 0% 3% 3% 3.31 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 17% 17% 6% 6% 22% 2.86 3.09 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 45% 19% 19% 0% 0% 16% 3.31 3.16 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.23 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 68% 27% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.62 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 6% 0% 0% 31% 3.55 3.32 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.59 3.44 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 62% 32% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3.57 3.51 4b. Treating parties with respect. 62% 22% 14% 3% 0% 0% 3.43 3.42 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 51% 14% 27% 3% 3% 3% 3.11 3.32 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 43% 35% 8% 5% 0% 8% 3.26 3.28 Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.38 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 32% 8% 5% 3% 0% 3.24 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 65% 24% 3% 0% 5% 3% 3.47 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 69% 6% 8% 3% 3% 11% 3.53 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.41 3.32 Overall Average Grade: 3.38 3.32 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Carlos A. All District Samour, Jr. Judges Sample Size = 37 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 14% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 27% Completely neutral 31% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 21% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 7% 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% 74% Somewhat recommend retain 21% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 95% 89% Total Not Retain 6% 11% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% 70% Somewhat recommend retain 19% 14% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 87% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 4% Total Not Retain 6% 11% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.38 Overall Average Grade 3.32 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.40 3.34 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.41 case after trial. 3.42 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.57 proceedings. 3.43 3.35 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.26 3.25 3.23 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.43 relevant facts. 3.30 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.31 3.13 2.86 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.09 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.31 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.16 3.59 Q3. Overall Communication 3.44 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.62 the proceedings. 3.55 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.55 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.32 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All District Judges Jud g20e10 CJudaicriall oPesrfo rAma.n cSe aSumrveoy Ruepro,r tJr. 6 ## Page 10 Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.34 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.38 3.57 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.51 3.43 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.11 in a neutral manner. 3.32 3.26 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.28 3.41 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.32 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.24 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.47 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.53 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. 14% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 31% Completely Neutral 47% 21% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 7% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Samour, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 74% Strongly recommend retain 74% 21% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Judge Samour, All Dist Jr. Judges 3% Total Retain 95% 89% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 11% 5% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 68% Strongly recommend retain 70% 19% Somewhat recommend retain 14% Judge Samour, All Dist 8% Jr. Judges Undecided or DK 4% Total Retain 87% 84% Undecided or DK 8% 4% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 6% 11% 5% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCaarrllooss AA.. SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All Sample Size = 27 Retention No Carlos A. District Evaluations of Judge Samour, Jr. = 14 A B C D Fail Grade Samour, Jr. Judges Judge Samour, Jr. in terms of overall performance as a judge. 27% 15% 12% 0% 0% 46% 3.29 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 CCaarrllooss AA.. SSaammoouurr,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 224466)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Carlos A. All District Sample Size = 246 A B C D Fail DK/NA Samour, Jr. Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 86% 12% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3.83 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 89% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3.87 3.68 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 89% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3.86 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 87% 9% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.83 3.57 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.85 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 85% 10% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3.83 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 85% 9% 2% 0% 1% 4% 3.83 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 0% 39% 3.81 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 82% 8% 2% 0% 1% 7% 3.82 3.65 Overall Fairness 3.82 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 90% 7% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.88 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 87% 11% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.86 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 89% 9% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.88 3.73 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.87 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 49% 31% 16% 1% 0% 3% 3.32 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 11% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 16% 4% 0% 0% 11% 3.73 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 82% 11% 2% 0% 0% 5% 3.84 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 62% 24% 8% 2% 0% 5% 3.52 3.55 time. Overall Diligence 3.65 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 78% 10% 3% 1% 0% 7% 3.78 3.57 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 68% 8% 2% 0% 1% 20% 3.78 3.60 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 80% 10% 2% 0% 1% 7% 3.81 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.79 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.79 3.64 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Carlos A. All District Samour, Jr. Judges Sample Size = 246 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% 10% Competely neutral 89% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 3% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.08 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 10% 10% Competely neutral 83% 80% Lenient sentencing total 7% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.09 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 95% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 4% Total Retain 99% 93% Total Not Retain 1% 6% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 91% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 4% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 4% Total Retain 95% 88% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 6% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.79 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.85 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.83 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.87 3.68 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.86 manner. 3.63 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.83 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.57 3.82 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.83 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.83 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.81 themselves. 3.62 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.82 or her case. 3.65 3.87 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.88 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.86 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.88 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All District Judges Jud 2g01e0 JCudaiciarll Poersfo rmAa.n cSe Saurmveyo Ruepror,t Jr. 14 ## Page 18 Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.65 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.32 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.73 3.61 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.84 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.52 little wasted time. 3.55 3.79 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.59 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.78 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.78 possible outside pressure. 3.60 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.81 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.08 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 0.08 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.09 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 0.07 All District Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All District Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 15 ## Page 19 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. All District Judges Judge Carlos A. Samour, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Samour, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 95% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 4% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% Judge Samour, All Dist Jr. Judges Total Retain 99% 93% 1% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 1% 6% 2% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 91% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 4% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 4% Judge Samour, All Dist Undecided 6% Jr. Judges Total Retain 95% 88% 1% Undecided 4% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 1% 6% 0% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 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 Samour 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 Carlos A. Samour, Jr. 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 31 20 2 0 9 31.0% Defense Attorneys 61 40 0 0 21 34.4% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 11 5 1 0 5 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 12 9 1 0 2 18.2% Total Attorneys 116 75 4 0 37 33.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 116 51 45 5 15 21.1% Other 83 51 25 1 6 10.3% Law Enforcement 213 141 49 0 23 14.0% Defendant 265 113 138 2 12 9.4% Civil Litigant 9 4 5 0 0 0.0% Jurors 270 77 5 1 187 70.6% Employees 4 0 0 1 3 75.0% Total Non-attorneys 960 437 267 10 246 35.5% Grand Total: 1076 512 271 10 283 35.2% 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

• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026