Peter E. Schoon Jr.
Trial Court · Larimer · Larimer
Meets Standards4 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2018 retention cycleTrial Court · Larimer · LarimerMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 65.9% yes92,388 yes · 47,845 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance in a non-unanimous 8-1 vote finds that Judge Peter E. Schoon, Jr. MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Schoon was appointed to the Larimer County Court in 2002. Prior to his appointment, Judge Schoon worked in private practice in Loveland, Colorado, with an emphasis in civil law. He also served as an Associate Judge of the Loveland Municipal Court from 1988 to 2002. Judge Schoon received his Bachelor’s Degree from Central College (Pella, Iowa) and his Juris Doctorate from Washburn University Law School (Topeka, Kansas). As a Larimer County Court Judge, Judge Schoon presides over criminal, traffic, and civil cases, including small claims. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Schoon, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, reviewed comments received from the Chief Judge, District Attorneys and Public Defenders Offices during the evaluation process, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Schoon. When survey respondents were asked “Do you think Judge Schoon meets performance standards?,” 80% of the attorneys and non-attorneys responding concluded that Judge Schoon meets performance standards. Among the attorneys responding, 71% said Judge Schoon meets performance standards, 21% said he does not meet performance standards, and 7% had no opinion. Among the non-attorneys responding, 84% said Judge Schoon meets performance standards, 9% said he does not meet performance standards, and 7% had no opinion. A total of 28 attorneys and 73 non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys regarding Judge Schoon. When evaluating whether a judge meets performance standards, the Commission considers the following criteria: Case Management, Knowledge and Application of Law, Communications, Diligence, Demeanor, and Fairness. Judge Schoon manages a busy docket effectively. The Commission finds him to be consistent in his rulings and to meet performance standards regarding knowledge of the law. Judge Schoon’s opinions are well-written and he is credited with timely rulings. Several respondents commented that he may have become too comfortable on the bench because of his long tenure and cautioned that he not become complacent. The Commission remains concerned about Judge Schoon’s courtroom demeanor; specifically, his use of sarcasm cloaked in humor. Judge Schoon stated that he has made a focused effort to refrain from being sarcastic toward those who appear before him. Despite these significant concerns, the Commission finds that Judge Schoon meets judicial performance standards. The Commission was not unanimous in this recommendation, eight commissioners voted that Judge Schoon meets judicial performance standards, one commissioner voted that he does not meet judicial performance standards, and one commissioner abstained.
- 2014 retention cycleTrial Court · Larimer · LarimerMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 72.7% yes78,321 yes · 29,445 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 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 Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Peter E. Schoon Jr. BE RETAINED. Judge Schoon received his Juris Doctorate degree from Washburn University of Topeka (Kansas) and his undergraduate degree from Central College (Pella, Iowa). Judge Schoon was admitted to the Colorado bar in July 1976. The Honorable Peter Schoon was appointed to the Larimer County Court on September 2, 2002 and took the bench in February 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Schoon was a lawyer in private practice in Loveland, Colorado with an emphasis in civil law. Along with his twenty-seven years in private practice, from 1988-2002, he also served as an Associate Judge of the Loveland Municipal Court. He has attended the National Judicial College and served as group facilitator for its Special Court Jurisdiction: Advanced course. The Commission reviewed evaluation surveys, the judge’s self-evaluation, and written opinions authored by him. The Commission interviewed a representative from the District Attorneys Office. Commission members also conducted courtroom observations and interviewed Judge Schoon. The Commission considered survey responses as well as written comments dealing with courtesy, impartiality, communications skill, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law and retention. He received high marks from both attorneys and non-attorneys in case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, and diligence. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 79% recommended retaining, 12% recommended not to retain, and 9% made no recommendation. Of non-attorneys surveyed, 93% recommended retaining, 4% not to retain, and 4% made no recommendation. (These percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.) Judge Schoon’s court handles a mix of traffic (17%), misdemeanor cases (20%) and civil cases (63%). Non-attorneys who responded to the survey questionnaire cited his fairness and calm demeanor. Attorneys who responded to the survey questionnaire spoke to Judge Schoon’s fairness, impartiality and ability to help defendants understand proceedings. While Judge Schoon tries to provide a less formal and rigid courtroom atmosphere, survey and interview input received by the Commission raised concerns that Judge Schoon’s sense of humor can be interpreted as sarcastic and inappropriate. The Commission finds him to be consistent in his rulings with a thorough knowledge of the law. Judge Schoon’s opinions are well written and he is credited with timely rulings. Judge Schoon notes that the County Court is often the public’s only contact with the court system. He believes that it is the judiciary’s role to address individual rights while promoting individual responsibility in a courteous, competent, and timely manner. He has met the goals inherent in this evaluation.
- 2010 retention cycleTrial Court · Larimer · LarimerCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets Standards(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 Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Peter E. Schoon, Jr. BE RETAINED. Judge Schoon received his law degree from Washburn University of Topeka and his undergraduate degree from Central College (Pella, Iowa). Judge Schoon presently serves on a statewide committee that is preparing a county court weighted caseload study for the State Court Administrator’s Office. In 2008 and 2009 Judge Schoon authored revisions to Chapter 2 of the Colorado DUI Benchbook. In 2009 he served as a group facilitator for the Special Courts–Advanced course at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. In 2008 Judge Schoon trained to be an “Our Courts” speaker to inform the public about Colorado’s judicial selection, retention, and discipline processes. Judge Schoon was appointed to the Larimer County Court on September 2, 2002. Prior to his appointment, Judge Schoon worked in the private practice of law for twenty-six years, and from 1988 to 2002 he also served as the Associate Judge for the Loveland, Colorado, Municipal Court. The Commission reviewed evaluation surveys, the judge’s self-evaluation, written opinions authored by him, and individually submitted letters. Commission members conducted courtroom observations, convened a public hearing, interviewed representatives of the District Attorney, County Attorney and Probation Offices, and interviewed Judge Schoon. Attorneys who responded to the survey questionnaire speak to Judge Schoon’s fairness, impartiality and ability to help defendants understand proceedings. The Commission finds him to be consistent in his rulings with a thorough knowledge of the law. His demeanor is attentive and respectful of all involved. Non-attorneys who responded to the survey questionnaire also cited his fairness and calm demeanor; as well as his courtesy to all parties. Judge Schoon’s opinions are well written and he is credited with timely rulings. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 84% recommended retention, 10% not to retain, and 7% expressed no opinion. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 83% recommended retention, 10% not to retain, and 8% expressed no opinion. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
- 2006 retention cycleTrial Court · Larimer · LarimerMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 74.8% yes64,538 yes · 21,688 no50% needed to retainReports: 2006 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Peter E. Schoon, Jr. BE RETAINED. The Commission voted eight in favor with two absent. Judge Schoon received his Juris Doctorate degree from Washburn University of Topeka (Kansas) and his undergraduate degree from Central College (Pella, Iowa). Judge Schoon was appointed to the Larimer County Court on September 2, 2002. Prior to his appointment, Judge Schoon was a lawyer in private practice in Loveland, Colorado with an emphasis in civil law. From 1988-2002, he also served as an Associate Judge of the Loveland Municipal Court. Judge Schoon’s court handles a mix of traffic/criminal misdemeanor cases and civil cases involving damages under $15,000. Judge Schoon believes that the County Court is often the public’s only contact with the court system. He also believes that it is the judiciary’s role to balance individual rights while promoting individual responsibility in a courteous, competent, and timely manner. The Commission interviewed representatives from the District Attorney’s office and the Public Defender’s office. The Commission reviewed evaluations of Judge Schoon received from respondents to a professionally conducted survey of both attorneys and non-attorneys who have been in his courtroom. The Commission considered statistical responses as well as written comments dealing with courtesy, impartiality, communications skill, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, and retention. Further, the Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by the judge and conducted a personal interview with Judge Schoon. While Judge Schoon tries to provide a less formal and rigid courtroom atmosphere, survey and interview input received by the Commission raised concerns that Judge Schoon’s sense of humor can be misinterpreted and thus detracts from professionalism in the courtroom. Attorneys responding to the survey recommended Judge Schoon be retained by 93%. Eighty-six percent of the non-attorneys responding to the survey also recommended that Judge Schoon be retained. He received high marks from both attorneys and non-attorneys in case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, and diligence.
Surveys & reports
- 2018 cycle
- 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPeetteerr SScchhoooonn,, JJrr.. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 8th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Peter Schoon, Jr. Loveland Police & Crts. Bldg. 810 E. 10th Street Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Judge Schoon: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Peter Schoon, Jr. May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. received an overall combined average grade of 3.55 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.43, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Schoon Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.55 3.43 3.67 Sample Size - 130 213 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Schoon’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Schoon Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 3.49 3.36 41 3.61 96 2010 3.54 3.42 53 3.65 43 2012 3.64 3.52 36 3.75 74 Overall 3.55 3.43 130 3.67 213 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. 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 Schoon’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Schoon Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Schoon Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.90 129 61% 3.31 84 39% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113300)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 130 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 62% 20% 2% 2% 1% 14% 3.64 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 24% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 56% 22% 3% 3% 2% 15% 3.50 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 68% 22% 5% 2% 1% 3% 3.60 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.57 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 61% 25% 8% 2% 2% 2% 3.42 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 58% 22% 10% 7% 2% 2% 3.30 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 37% 18% 12% 5% 2% 28% 3.16 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 33% 7% 2% 2% 7% 3.32 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.30 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 68% 22% 6% 2% 0% 2% 3.60 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 54% 26% 4% 2% 2% 12% 3.46 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.53 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 18% 12% 4% 1% 2% 3.43 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 14% 10% 8% 1% 1% 3.40 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 18% 12% 7% 2% 1% 3.29 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 26% 7% 4% 3% 2% 3.35 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.37 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 58% 25% 9% 5% 2% 2% 3.34 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 61% 21% 9% 3% 1% 5% 3.46 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 15% 5% 3% 1% 21% 3.52 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.43 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 25% Completely neutral 55% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 1% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 3% Don't know or not sure 3% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% 56% Recommend retain 31% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 87% 79% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 6% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% 56% Recommend retain 31% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 87% 78% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 6% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.43 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.57 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.64 case after trial. 3.50 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.50 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.60 3.37 3.30 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.42 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.32 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.53 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.60 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.46 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.37 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.43 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.40 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.29 neutral manner. 3.24 3.35 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.44 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.34 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.46 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.52 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 11% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 55% Completely Neutral 51% 1% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 3% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 56% Strongly recommend retain 56% 31% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain Judge Schoon, All Cnty 9% Jr. Judges* Total Retain 87% 79% 3% Recommend not retain Neither 8% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 56% Strongly recommend retain 56% 31% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain Judge Schoon, All Cnty 9% Jr. Judges* 3% Recommend not retain Total Retain 87% 78% 5% Neither 8% 9% 3% Total Not Retain 6% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 221133)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 213 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 9% 2% 4% 3% 1% 3.61 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 12% 4% 2% 4% 0% 3.59 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 12% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.55 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.61 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3.68 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 10% 4% 2% 4% 1% 3.61 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 6% 2% 1% 2% 37% 3.62 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 14% 2% 2% 1% 5% 3.70 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.65 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 85% 8% 5% 1% 1% 0% 3.75 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 12% 3% 2% 0% 1% 3.75 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 83% 13% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.80 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.77 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 9% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 70% 12% 3% 1% 2% 12% 3.66 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 77% 8% 3% 1% 1% 10% 3.76 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 19% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3.66 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.71 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 68% 13% 6% 2% 2% 8% 3.56 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 64% 8% 2% 2% 3% 20% 3.62 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 10% 3% 2% 3% 9% 3.62 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% 13% Competely neutral 80% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.10 0.13 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 15% 12% Competely neutral 77% 76% Lenient sentencing total 10% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.20 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 80% 67% Recommend retain 14% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 1% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 94% 85% Neither 1% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 77% 64% Recommend retain 14% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 1% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 3% 5% Total Retain 91% 81% Neither 1% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 9% Don't Know 3% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.67 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.61 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.68 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.61 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.59 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.65 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.68 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.61 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.70 or her case. 3.58 3.77 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.75 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.80 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.71 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.67 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.78 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.66 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.76 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.66 little wasted time. 3.49 3.60 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.56 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.62 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.62 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.10 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.20 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain 67% 14% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 1% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Judge Schoon, All Cnty Jr. Judges* 1% Recommend not retain Total Retain 94% 85% 3% Neither 1% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain 64% 14% Recommend retain 17% 1% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents Judge Schoon, All Cnty 1% Jr. Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 91% 81% Neither 1% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 4% 9% 6% Total DK 3% 5% Don't know enough to make a 3% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Schoon is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Peter Schoon, 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 65 46 0 0 19 29.2% Defense Attorneys 186 119 1 0 66 35.7% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 12 7 0 0 5 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 103 59 4 0 40 40.4% Total Attorneys 366 231 5 0 130 36.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 94 44 26 8 16 23.5% Law Enforcement 33 18 9 2 4 16.7% Defendant 507 291 163 6 47 13.7% Civil Litigant 99 62 29 1 7 10.0% Witness 7 2 3 0 2 50.0% Jurors 237 89 14 5 129 57.8% Employees, including Interpreters 6 1 0 0 5 83.3% Probation Officers 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Total Non-attorneys 987 508 244 22 213 28.7% Grand Total: 1353 739 249 22 343 31.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2018 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score—judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend80%respondent count not on recordNon-attorneys recommend84%respondent count not on record
- 2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPeetteerr SScchhoooonn,, JJrr.. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 8th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Peter Schoon, Jr. Loveland Police & Crts. Bldg. 810 E. 10th Street Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Judge Schoon: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Peter Schoon, Jr. May 28, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. received an overall combined average grade of 3.55 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.43, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Schoon Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.55 3.43 3.67 Sample Size - 130 213 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Schoon’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Schoon Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 3.49 3.36 41 3.61 96 2010 3.54 3.42 53 3.65 43 2012 3.64 3.52 36 3.75 74 Overall 3.55 3.43 130 3.67 213 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. 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 Schoon’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Schoon Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Schoon Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.90 129 61% 3.31 84 39% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113300)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 130 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 62% 20% 2% 2% 1% 14% 3.64 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 65% 24% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 56% 22% 3% 3% 2% 15% 3.50 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 68% 22% 5% 2% 1% 3% 3.60 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.57 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 61% 25% 8% 2% 2% 2% 3.42 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 58% 22% 10% 7% 2% 2% 3.30 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 37% 18% 12% 5% 2% 28% 3.16 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 33% 7% 2% 2% 7% 3.32 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.30 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 68% 22% 6% 2% 0% 2% 3.60 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 54% 26% 4% 2% 2% 12% 3.46 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.53 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 18% 12% 4% 1% 2% 3.43 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 14% 10% 8% 1% 1% 3.40 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 18% 12% 7% 2% 1% 3.29 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 26% 7% 4% 3% 2% 3.35 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.37 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 58% 25% 9% 5% 2% 2% 3.34 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 61% 21% 9% 3% 1% 5% 3.46 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 55% 15% 5% 3% 1% 21% 3.52 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.44 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.43 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 25% Completely neutral 55% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 1% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 3% Don't know or not sure 3% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% 56% Recommend retain 31% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Total Retain 87% 79% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 6% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% 56% Recommend retain 31% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 87% 78% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 6% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.43 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.57 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.64 case after trial. 3.50 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.50 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.60 3.37 3.30 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.42 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 3.30 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.32 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.53 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.60 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.46 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.37 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.43 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.40 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.29 neutral manner. 3.24 3.35 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.44 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.34 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.46 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.52 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 11% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 55% Completely Neutral 51% 1% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 3% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 56% Strongly recommend retain 56% 31% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain Judge Schoon, All Cnty 9% Jr. Judges* Total Retain 87% 79% 3% Recommend not retain Neither 8% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 13% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 56% Strongly recommend retain 56% 31% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain Judge Schoon, All Cnty 9% Jr. Judges* 3% Recommend not retain Total Retain 87% 78% 5% Neither 8% 9% 3% Total Not Retain 6% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 221133)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 213 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.68 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 9% 2% 4% 3% 1% 3.61 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 12% 4% 2% 4% 0% 3.59 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 12% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.55 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.61 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3.68 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 10% 4% 2% 4% 1% 3.61 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 6% 2% 1% 2% 37% 3.62 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 14% 2% 2% 1% 5% 3.70 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.65 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 85% 8% 5% 1% 1% 0% 3.75 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 12% 3% 2% 0% 1% 3.75 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 83% 13% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.80 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.77 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 9% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 70% 12% 3% 1% 2% 12% 3.66 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 77% 8% 3% 1% 1% 10% 3.76 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 19% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3.66 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.71 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 68% 13% 6% 2% 2% 8% 3.56 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 64% 8% 2% 2% 3% 20% 3.62 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 10% 3% 2% 3% 9% 3.62 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% 13% Competely neutral 80% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.10 0.13 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 15% 12% Competely neutral 77% 76% Lenient sentencing total 10% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.20 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 80% 67% Recommend retain 14% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 1% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Total Retain 94% 85% Neither 1% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 77% 64% Recommend retain 14% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 1% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 3% 5% Total Retain 91% 81% Neither 1% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 9% Don't Know 3% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.67 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.61 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.68 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.61 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.59 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.65 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.68 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.61 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.70 or her case. 3.58 3.77 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.75 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.80 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.71 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.67 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.78 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.66 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.76 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.66 little wasted time. 3.49 3.60 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.56 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.62 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.62 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.10 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.20 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain 67% 14% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 1% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Judge Schoon, All Cnty Jr. Judges* 1% Recommend not retain Total Retain 94% 85% 3% Neither 1% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 9% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain 64% 14% Recommend retain 17% 1% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents Judge Schoon, All Cnty 1% Jr. Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 91% 81% Neither 1% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 4% 9% 6% Total DK 3% 5% Don't know enough to make a 3% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Schoon is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Peter Schoon, 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 65 46 0 0 19 29.2% Defense Attorneys 186 119 1 0 66 35.7% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 12 7 0 0 5 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 103 59 4 0 40 40.4% Total Attorneys 366 231 5 0 130 36.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 94 44 26 8 16 23.5% Law Enforcement 33 18 9 2 4 16.7% Defendant 507 291 163 6 47 13.7% Civil Litigant 99 62 29 1 7 10.0% Witness 7 2 3 0 2 50.0% Jurors 237 89 14 5 129 57.8% Employees, including Interpreters 6 1 0 0 5 83.3% Probation Officers 4 1 0 0 3 75.0% Total Non-attorneys 987 508 244 22 213 28.7% Grand Total: 1353 739 249 22 343 31.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPeetteerr SScchhoooonn,, JJrr.. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Peter Schoon, Jr. Loveland Police & Crts. Bldg. 810 E. 10th Street Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Judge Schoon: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. received an overall combined average grade of 3.53 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.34, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.71, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Schoon Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.53 3.34 3.71 Sample Size - 131 198 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Schoon’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Schoon Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 3.54 3.42 53 3.65 43 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.64 3.52 36 3.75 74 2013 3.40 3.09 42 3.71 81 Overall 3.53 3.34 131 3.71 198 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 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 Schoon’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Schoon Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.90 128 65% 3.36 70 35% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113311)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 131 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 56% 23% 2% 2% 1% 17% 3.59 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 63% 25% 8% 1% 2% 2% 3.50 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 52% 24% 5% 2% 2% 15% 3.46 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 25% 4% 2% 1% 3% 3.58 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.53 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 27% 8% 2% 4% 1% 3.37 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 25% 12% 7% 2% 2% 3.20 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 17% 14% 3% 5% 22% 3.03 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 31% 4% 5% 4% 9% 3.27 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.22 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 62% 26% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.48 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 29% 6% 2% 2% 12% 3.40 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.44 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 60% 22% 8% 7% 2% 2% 3.34 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 62% 18% 8% 8% 4% 1% 3.28 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 56% 18% 12% 10% 4% 1% 3.13 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 30% 10% 4% 4% 1% 3.22 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.24 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 28% 13% 3% 5% 1% 3.18 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.36 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 5% 3% 2% 23% 3.46 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.33 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.34 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 18% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 25% Completely neutral 46% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 2% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 49% 55% Recommend retain 30% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% 9% Recommend not retain 7% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 7% Total Retain 79% 78% Neither 9% 9% Total Not Retain 12% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.34 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.53 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.59 case after trial. 3.50 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.46 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.37 3.22 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.37 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.20 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.03 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 3.27 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.44 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.48 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.40 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.24 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.34 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.28 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.13 neutral manner. 3.20 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.33 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.18 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.36 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.46 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 18% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 46% Completely Neutral 51% 2% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 5% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? 49% Strongly recommend retain 55% 30% Recommend retain 23% 9% Judge Schoon, All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Jr. Judges* Total Retain 79% 78% 7% Neither 9% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 12% 13% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 119988)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 198 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.73 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 10% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3.70 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 12% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.60 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.66 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 11% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3.69 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 82% 7% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.67 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 4% 3% 1% 3% 39% 3.62 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 11% 3% 1% 1% 6% 3.74 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.68 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 84% 10% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.76 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 83% 13% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3.79 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 13% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.80 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 78% 12% 3% 1% 1% 6% 3.76 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3.77 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 71% 12% 2% 2% 1% 13% 3.72 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 76% 8% 3% 2% 1% 11% 3.77 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 77% 16% 2% 1% 0% 4% 3.76 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.76 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 16% 5% 1% 2% 10% 3.62 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 8% 3% 3% 1% 20% 3.69 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 10% 3% 1% 2% 10% 3.72 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.68 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.71 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% 11% Competely neutral 79% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.07 0.08 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% 10% Competely neutral 83% 76% Lenient sentencing total 9% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.05 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 79% 68% Recommend retain 14% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 4% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 93% 86% Neither 4% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.71 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.66 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.73 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.70 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.62 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.60 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.68 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.69 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.67 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.62 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.74 or her case. 3.60 3.80 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.76 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.79 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.84 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 11 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.76 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.76 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.77 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.72 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.77 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.76 little wasted time. 3.51 3.68 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.62 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.69 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.72 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.07 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 0.05 Peter Schoon, Jr. -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 12 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? 79% Strongly recommend retain 68% 14% Recommend retain 18% 4% Neither retain nor not retain Judge Schoon, All Cnty 6% Jr. Judges* 1% Total Retain 93% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 4% 6% Total Not Retain 4% 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Colorado Public Defender’s Office Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 17 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 18 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Schoon is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Peter Schoon, 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 55 31 5 0 19 38.0% Defense Attorneys 167 90 11 0 66 42.3% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 116 60 10 0 46 43.4% Total Attorneys 338 181 26 0 131 42.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 108 50 31 9 18 23.4% Law Enforcement 22 12 3 1 6 31.6% Defendant 432 257 143 5 27 9.3% Civil Litigant 142 90 38 1 13 12.5% Witness 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Jurors 232 82 18 4 128 59.8% Employees, including Interpreters 7 2 0 0 5 71.4% Total Non-attorneys 945 493 234 20 198 27.8% Grand Total: 1283 674 260 20 329 32.2% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 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 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
- 2010 cycle
- 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPeetteerr SScchhoooonn,, JJrr.. 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 6, 2011 The Honorable Peter Schoon, Jr. Loveland Police & Crts. Bldg. 810 E. 10th Street, Suite 110 Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Judge Schoon: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Peter Schoon, Jr. May 6, 2011 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss bbyy YYeeaarr aanndd JJuurroorr//NNoonn--JJuurroorr On average, county judges received an overall combined average grade in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.45--the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.33, to the survey plus the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.56, divided by two. Based on an average attorney grade of 3.37, and an average non-attorney grade of 3.55, Judge Peter Schoon, Jr.’s combined grade for the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of 3.46. Judge Schoon Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.46 3.37 3.55 Sample Size - 123 263 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed by Judge Schoon from 2007 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Schoon’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Schoon Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 3.26 3.09 9 3.42 63 2008 3.42 3.33 20 3.51 61 2009 3.49 3.36 41 3.61 96 2010 3.54 3.42 53 3.65 43 Overall 3.46 3.37 123 3.55 263 Table 2 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 54%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.83, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of 1 ## Page 5 jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Schoon’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors for each year from 2007 to 2010. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges. Judge Schoon Average Grades by Year Jurors Non-Jurors All County Judges Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Year Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 2007 3.93 16 25% 3.27 47 75% 3.82 3.30 2008 3.80 28 46% 3.26 33 54% 3.82 3.26 2009 3.88 51 53% 3.32 45 47% 3.83 3.22 2010 3.89 31 72% 3.07 12 28% 3.85 3.25 All Yrs. 3.87 126 48% 3.26 137 52% 3.83 3.26 Table 3 Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Schoon’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112233)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 123 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 57% 20% 2% 1% 1% 20% 3.63 3.52 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 26% 9% 2% 1% 2% 3.45 3.44 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 50% 24% 2% 2% 2% 20% 3.47 3.39 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 24% 5% 2% 2% 5% 3.52 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.52 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 30% 10% 3% 2% 2% 3.32 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 25% 12% 8% 1% 2% 3.20 3.16 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 32% 17% 12% 7% 2% 30% 3.00 3.07 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 32% 9% 3% 1% 11% 3.29 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3.20 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 8% 2% 0% 2% 3.56 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 26% 6% 4% 1% 14% 3.40 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.48 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 60% 21% 11% 4% 2% 2% 3.36 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 16% 12% 7% 0% 1% 3.37 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 14% 15% 7% 2% 1% 3.24 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 25% 9% 5% 2% 6% 3.28 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.31 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 27% 9% 7% 2% 3% 3.23 3.20 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 55% 20% 14% 3% 0% 8% 3.37 3.28 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 16% 7% 2% 0% 24% 3.52 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.37 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.37 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges Sample Size = 123 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 12% 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 28% Completely neutral 53% 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 1% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 1% 2% Don't know or not sure 4% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 73% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 7% Total Retain 90% 88% Total Not Retain 9% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 69% 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 6% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 5% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 85% 84% Undecided/Don't Know 6% 5% Total Not Retain 9% 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.37 Overall Average Grade 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.52 3.44 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.63 case after trial. 3.52 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.45 proceedings. 3.44 3.47 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.52 3.39 3.20 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.20 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.32 relevant facts. 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.20 3.16 3.00 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.07 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.29 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.27 3.48 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.56 the proceedings. 3.53 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.40 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.30 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 6 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 10 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.31 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.36 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.43 3.37 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.43 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.24 in a neutral manner. 3.26 3.28 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.27 3.37 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.23 releveant laws and rules. 3.20 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.37 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.28 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.52 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.39 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 12% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 28% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% 53% Completely Neutral 50% 1% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 1% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges 7 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 11 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 73% Strongly recommend retain 71% 17% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Judge Schoon, All Cnty Jr. Judges 5% Total Retain 90% 88% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 9% 13% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 69% Strongly recommend retain 68% 16% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge Schoon, All Cnty 6% Jr. Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 85% 84% Undecided or DK 6% 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 9% 12% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges 8 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee PPeetteerr SScchhonn,, JJrr.. ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 226633)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Sample Size = 263 A B C D Fail DK/NA Jr. Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 18% 6% 3% 1% 0% 3.56 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 75% 14% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.56 3.61 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 72% 17% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.54 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 63% 21% 7% 3% 4% 2% 3.39 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.51 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.59 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 19% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.50 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 48% 12% 3% 2% 3% 33% 3.49 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 19% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.58 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.54 3.55 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 75% 14% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 15% 6% 2% 0% 1% 3.63 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.65 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 68% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 78% 15% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 4% 2% 2% 11% 3.58 3.56 4d. Being prepared for cases. 71% 13% 4% 2% 2% 8% 3.63 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 66% 21% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.53 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.60 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 61% 16% 7% 3% 4% 9% 3.41 3.50 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 54% 12% 5% 2% 4% 22% 3.42 3.52 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 62% 15% 4% 4% 3% 11% 3.46 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.43 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Peter Schoon, All County Jr. Judges Sample Size = 263 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 15% 12% Competely neutral 78% 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.16 0.12 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% 12% Competely neutral 74% 77% Lenient sentencing total 13% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.15 0.06 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 81% 84% Somewhat recommend retain 10% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 91% 92% Total Not Retain 8% 8% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% 77% Somewhat recommend retain 9% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 5% Total Retain 84% 85% Undecided/Don't Know 8% 8% Total Not Retain 8% 7% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.55 Overall Average Grade 3.56 3.51 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.56 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.56 3.61 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.54 manner. 3.55 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.39 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.47 3.54 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.55 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.59 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.50 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.49 themselves. 3.51 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.58 or her case. 3.59 3.65 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.66 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.61 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.63 understand. 3.66 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.72 can hear what's being said. 3.69 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. 12 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 16 Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.60 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.56 3.54 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.45 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.70 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.56 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.63 3.61 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.53 little wasted time. 3.50 3.43 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.51 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.41 3.50 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.42 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.46 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0.16 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.12 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 0.15 Peter Schoon, Jr. 0.06 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Lenient Harsh Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges 13 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 17 Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges Judge Peter Schoon, Jr. Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 81% Strongly recommend retain in office 84% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Judge Schoon, All Cnty Jr. Judges Total Retain 91% 92% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 8% 8% 2% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 75% Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 9% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 8% Judge Schoon, All Cnty Undecided 8% Jr. Judges Total Retain 84% 85% 3% Undecided 8% 8% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Total Not Retain 8% 7% 5% Strongly recommend not retain in office 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peter Schoon, Jr. All County Judges 14 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the courts in the 1st and 18th Judicial Districts. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010, and going forward, rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined survey results collected from January 2005 through March 30, 20111 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 17 ## Page 21 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. 18 ## Page 22 The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 43.3% for district judges and 33.4% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey-evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated and results in what appear to be lower overall cooperation rates. However, comparing the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the mail surveys conducted from 2005 to 2008 to the percentage of unique attorneys who responded to the online surveys conducted from 2009 to the first quarter of 2011 yields very similar percentages. From 2005 to 2008 6,347 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys. Four thousand three (3,984), or 62.8%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Similarly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 7,589 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey, of which an almost identical percentage, 62.9% (4,777 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 3.7 judges. 2 2 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding trial judges who are active at this writing. 19 ## Page 23 II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since in 2010, non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the survey results only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. 3 3 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005 and 2007 through the 1st quarter of 2011, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 20 ## Page 24 b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 21 ## Page 25 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Schoon is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Peter Schoon, 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 53 38 1 0 14 26.9% Defense Attorneys 205 124 2 1 78 38.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 27 17 1 0 9 34.6% Other Attorneys Civil 64 42 0 0 22 34.4% Total Attorneys 349 221 4 1 123 35.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 65 35 17 2 11 22.9% Other 51 29 15 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 132 60 31 6 35 34.7% Defendant 494 277 152 4 61 17.8% Civil Litigant 135 88 27 3 17 15.7% Witness 7 2 3 0 2 50.0% Jurors 228 90 8 4 126 57.3% Employees 6 1 0 0 5 83.3% Total Non-attorneys 1118 582 253 20 263 30.4% Grand Total: 1467 803 257 21 386 31.9% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 4156 2811 74 4 1267 31.0% Defense Attorneys 17291 11594 196 12 5489 32.1% Other Attorneys Criminal 160 82 25 0 53 39.3% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2387 1332 95 5 955 41.7% Other Attorneys Civil 2728 1654 69 1 1004 37.8% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Attorneys, Unknown Role Type 50 17 13 1 19 51.4% Total Attorneys 26774 17490 472 23 8789 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 687 473 180 14 20 3.9% Witness 5666 3174 1559 223 709 17.3% Other 3497 2198 941 46 312 12.2% Law Enforcement 10881 6925 1772 150 2030 22.3% Defendant 45129 24420 16000 487 4214 14.5% Civil Litigant 12946 6956 3594 202 2193 23.4% Witness 1892 1039 433 35 383 26.3% Other 110 64 27 2 17 20.5% Jurors 25631 11551 1871 542 11609 48.9% Employees 403 132 59 43 169 49.1% Total Non-attorneys 106842 56932 26436 1744 21656 26.9% Grand Total: 133616 74422 26908 1767 30445 28.5% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge being evaluated, and who most often—albeit not always—are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 8789 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 6% 1% 1% 24% 3.52 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 62% 24% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3.44 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 21% 7% 2% 1% 21% 3.39 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 57% 24% 9% 3% 2% 6% 3.39 Overall Case Management 3.44 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 25% 10% 4% 3% 3% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 23% 12% 6% 4% 7% 3.16 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 4% 22% 3.07 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 48% 23% 9% 4% 3% 14% 3.27 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.20 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.53 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 41% 18% 8% 3% 2% 28% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 2% 1% 3.43 4b. Treating parties with respect. 67% 18% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.43 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 10% 6% 4% 1% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 3% 5% 3.27 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 5% 4% 3% 3.20 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 51% 23% 9% 4% 3% 10% 3.28 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 52% 18% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.33 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 8789 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 28% Completely neutral 50% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 88% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 68% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 84% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 21656 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 72% 18% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 74% 15% 5% 2% 3% 1% 3.55 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 18% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3.47 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 3% 29% 3.51 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 5% 3.59 Overall Fairness 3.55 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.69 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.66 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 4d.Being prepared for cases. 71% 15% 4% 2% 2% 7% 3.61 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.50 time. Overall Diligence 3.56 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 65% 16% 5% 2% 3% 8% 3.50 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 60% 12% 4% 2% 3% 19% 3.52 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 4% 2% 4% 8% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.51 Overall Average Grade: 3.56 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 21656 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 12% Competely neutral 81% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.12 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 77% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.06 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page - 2010 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.
- 2006 cycle
- 2006 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee PPeetteerr EE.. SScchhoooonn,, JJrr.. 2006 Judicial Performance Survey 8th Judicial District ## Page 2 April 26, 2006 The Honorable Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Loveland Police & Crts. Bldg. 810 E. 10th Street, Suite 110 Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Judge Schoon: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2006 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 75,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 21,000 people responded—4,600 to the attorney survey and 17,000 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 1a through 5e), each section and each question. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses 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. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is 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), the percentage distribution of responses by non-attorneys to 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. · 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. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 April, 26 2006 The Honorable Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Jane Howell, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 5 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.5 Overall Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Q1. Overall Case 3.4 Management 3.4 3.3 Q2. Overall App & 3.3 Knowldge of Law 3.3 3.7 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 6 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Average Grades: Case Management 3.5 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.4 3.4 3.6 1a. Promptly making rulings 3.6 during trial 3.6 3.6 1b. Beginning court on time 3.3 3.4 3.6 1c. Allotting appropriate 3.3 amount of time for cases 3.3 3.6 1d. Keeping cases moving 3.4 according to schedule 3.3 3.4 1e. [Civil only] Assisting 3.3 parties to reach agreement 3.2 3.5 1f. Maintaining appropriate 3.5 control over proceedings 3.5 3.4 1g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 motions 3.3 3.6 1h. Promptly issuing a 3.5 decision on the case after trial 3.5 3.6 1i. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.3 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 7 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 Q2. Overall App & Knowldge of 3.3 Law 3.3 3.3 2a. Basing decisions on 3.2 evidence and arguments 3.3 3.5 2b. Giving reasons for rulings 3.3 3.4 3.3 2c. [Civil only] Issuing written 3.1 findings of fact and law 3.2 3.1 2d. Willing to reconsider error 3.0 in fact or law 3.0 3.2 2e. Having knowledge of 3.3 relevant substantive law 3.3 3.2 2f. Having knowledge of rules 3.4 of procedure and evidence 3.4 3.4 2g. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 2h. [Criminal only] Issuing 3.2 consistent sentences when 3.3 the circumstances are similar 3.3 2i. Willing to make decision 3.4 without regard to possible 3.3 criticism 3.4 3.3 2j. Making decisions without 3.4 fear of being appealed 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 8 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.7 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.7 3a. Speaking clearly 3.6 3.6 3.6 3b. Making sure all participants understand the 3.6 proceedings 3.6 3.7 3c. Using understandable 3.7 language 3.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 9 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.6 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.5 4a. Giving proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.6 3.6 4b. Treating everyone 3.4 involved politely 3.5 3.5 4c. Having empathy with the 3.3 parties involved 3.3 3.6 4d. Treating participants with 3.4 respect 3.5 3.6 4e. Presenting a neutral 3.3 presence on the bench 3.4 3.6 4f. Being consistent in 3.4 [his/her] behavior 3.5 4g. Conducting [his/her] 3.6 courtroom in a neutral 3.3 manner 3.4 3.7 4h. Giving all participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.4 4i. Consistently applying laws 3.4 and rules 3.4 3.6 4j. Not engaging in ex parte 3.6 communications 3.6 3.7 4k. Treating pro se parties 3.5 fairly 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 10 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.3 3.4 3.4 5a. Making tough decisions 3.3 when necessary 3.4 3.3 5b. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 rules 3.3 3.4 5c. Doing the necessary 'homework' and being 3.3 prepared for [his/her] cases 3.4 3.6 5d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.4 when they are complicated and time consuming 3.5 3.6 5e. Providing prompt access to the court in emergency 3.5 matters 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 11 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Q6. Average: How biased do you think Judge Schoon, Jr. is toward the defense or prosecution? Peter E. 1 Schoon, Jr. County Judges 0.9 All Trial Judges 0.8 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 12 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Q7. Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Schoon, Jr.'s sentences? Peter E. 0.1 Schoon, Jr. County Judges 0.5 All Trial Judges 0.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 13 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 81% 79% 80% 77% 76% 74% 73% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 14%14% 13%13% 12% 12% 10% 5%5% 5%5% 5%5% 5%5% 4% 4%4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Judge Schoon, Jr. Including Undecided C o u n t y J u d g e s Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 14 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Promptly making rulings during trial?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 54% 56% B 16% 21% 21% C 5% 5% 5% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 23% 19% 17% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 15 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Beginning court on time?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 69% 53% 56% B 26% 29% 28% C 2% 11% 9% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 16 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 60% 52% 51% B 29% 30% 29% C 2% 10% 11% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 17 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Keeping cases moving according to schedule?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 64% 54% 53% B 29% 31% 31% C 3% 9% 9% D 2% 3% Fail 2% 1% 2% No Grade 2% 3% 3% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 18 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1e. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "[Civil only] Assisting parties to reach agreement?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 25% 28% 27% B 21% 17% 18% C 4% 5% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 50% 47% 43% Average 3.4 3.3 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 19 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1f. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 61% 63% B 25% 26% 25% C 7% 8% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 5% 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 20 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1g. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 43% 44% B 21% 25% 25% C 9% 7% 8% D 1% 2% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 22% 24% 19% Average 3.4 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 21 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1h. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 52% 48% 48% B 17% 21% 21% C 3% 4% 5% D 2% 1% 2% Fail 1% No Grade 26% 26% 24% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 22 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 1i. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 52% 50% B 33% 29% 30% C 8% 9% D 2% 2% 3% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 10% 8% 6% Average 3.6 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 23 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Basing decisions on evidence and arguments?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 50% 53% B 33% 28% 27% C 5% 9% 9% D 3% 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 7% 5% 4% Average 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 24 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 59% 54% 57% B 24% 26% 25% C 5% 10% 9% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 4% 4% Average 3.5 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 25 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "[Civil only] Issuing written findings of fact and law?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 20% 20% 28% B 12% 13% 15% C 6% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 59% 58% 48% Average 3.3 3.1 3.2 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 26 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Willing to reconsider error in fact or law?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 32% 30% 29% B 23% 19% 20% C 5% 9% 9% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 4% 4% 4% No Grade 32% 34% 33% Average 3.1 3.0 3.0 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 27 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Having knowledge of relevant substantive law?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 45% 50% 52% B 34% 31% 30% C 9% 9% 9% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 4% 3% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 28 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 43% 55% 58% B 34% 29% 27% C 7% 8% 8% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 4% 3% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 29 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 53% 57% B 29% 29% 27% C 7% 9% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 5% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 30 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "[Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 28% 38% 33% B 26% 23% 20% C 7% 6% 6% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 35% 29% 37% Average 3.2 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 31 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible criticism?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 51% 53% B 23% 22% 22% C 5% 9% 8% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 19% 12% 12% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 32 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Making decisions without fear of being appealed?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 45% 52% 54% B 21% 23% 22% C 7% 7% 7% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% 2% No Grade 22% 14% 14% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 33 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Speaking clearly?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 72% 73% B 21% 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 1% Average 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 34 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Making sure all participants understand the proceedings?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 74% 71% 71% B 21% 20% 20% C 4% 6% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 35 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Using understandable language?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 73% 74% B 21% 21% 20% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 2% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 36 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 66% 69% B 23% 22% 20% C 7% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 1% Average 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 23 ## Page 37 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Treating everyone involved politely?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 75% 69% 70% B 16% 17% 17% C 7% 6% 6% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 24 ## Page 38 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Having empathy with the parties involved?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 58% 59% B 25% 23% 22% C 7% 8% 9% D 2% 5% 5% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 4% 2% 3% Average 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 25 ## Page 39 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Treating participants with respect?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 77% 66% 69% B 16% 20% 18% C 4% 6% 6% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 26 ## Page 40 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Presenting a neutral presence on the bench?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 72% 62% 63% B 19% 20% 19% C 7% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 2% 4% 4% No Grade 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 27 ## Page 41 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4f. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Being consistent in [his/her] behavior?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 67% 63% 64% B 18% 22% 21% C 5% 8% 7% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 2% 2% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 28 ## Page 42 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4g. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 73% 62% 63% B 18% 20% 19% C 4% 8% 8% D 2% 4% 4% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 29 ## Page 43 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4h. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 79% 68% 69% B 14% 20% 19% C 4% 7% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 30 ## Page 44 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4i. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Consistently applying laws and rules?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 58% 59% B 25% 24% 23% C 4% 8% 8% D 5% 3% 4% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 4% 4% Average 3.4 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 31 ## Page 45 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4j. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 60% 63% B 12% 16% 15% C 4% 4% 3% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 23% 16% 16% Average 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 32 ## Page 46 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 4k. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Treating pro se parties fairly?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 56% 52% B 9% 15% 13% C 5% 4% 4% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 31% 21% 28% Average 3.7 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 33 ## Page 47 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Making tough decisions when necessary?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 48% 52% B 32% 25% 23% C 5% 9% 8% D 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 14% 12% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 34 ## Page 48 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 51% 53% B 35% 28% 27% C 4% 9% 9% D 5% 4% 4% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 2% 5% 4% Average 3.3 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 35 ## Page 49 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Doing the necessary 'homework' and being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 54% 49% 53% B 33% 28% 26% C 5% 9% 9% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 2% 9% 7% Average 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 36 ## Page 50 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 50% 53% B 14% 22% 21% C 7% 7% 7% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 19% 17% 15% Average 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 37 ## Page 51 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Providing prompt access to the court in emergency matters?" Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 45% 39% 41% B 16% 16% 16% C 2% 5% 5% D 1% 1% Fail 2% 1% 1% No Grade 36% 38% 36% Average 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 38 ## Page 52 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Schoon, Jr. is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 4% 3% 4 2% 5% 5% 3 7% 7% 7% 2 14% 12% 11% 1 38% 19% 18% 29% 47% 47% -1 2% 3% 4% -2 2% 2% 2% -3 2% 1% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 Average 1.0 0.9 0.8 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 39 ## Page 53 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Schoon, Jr. are? Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 2% 2% 4 3% 3% 4% 3 3% 5% 5% 2 8% 9% 1 15% 15% 15% 70% 58% 55% -1 2% 3% -2 8% 2% 3% -3 1% 2% -4 3% 1% 1% -5 1% 1% Average 0.1 0.5 0.5 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 40 ## Page 54 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 81% 76% 77% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 12% 14% 14% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 5% 5% 4% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 2% 5% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 41 ## Page 55 NNoonn AAttttoorrnneeyy SSuurrvveeyy ## Page 56 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Overall and by Section 3.2 Overall Average 3.4 3.5 3.1 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.2 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.4 Q3. Overall 3.6 Communications 3.6 3.4 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.0 Q5. Overall Application 3.4 of Law 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Average Grade Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 57 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Demeanor 3.1 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.4 3.5 3.2 1a. Giving court proceedings a 3.5 sense of dignity 3.5 3.2 1b. Treating participants 3.5 politely and with respect 3.5 3.1 1c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral 3.4 manner 3.5 3.0 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.3 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 58 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Fairness 3.2 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.4 3.5 3.3 2a. Giving participants an 3.5 opportunity to be heard 3.5 3.2 2b. Treating those involved 3.4 with the case without bias 3.5 3.2 2c. Treating fairly people who 3.4 represent themselves 3.4 3.4 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.5 case 3.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 59 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Communications 3.4 Q3. Overall Communications 3.6 3.6 3.4 3a. Making sure all participants understand the 3.5 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom 3.6 3.5 3b. Using language that 3.6 everyone can understand 3.6 3.5 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.6 can hear what's being said 3.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Average Grade County Judges All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 60 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Diligence 3.4 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.4 3.5 3.4 4a. Beginning court on time 3.2 3.3 3.5 4b. Maintaining appropriate 3.6 control over proceedings 3.6 3.4 4c. Setting reasonable 3.4 schedules for cases 3.5 3.3 4d. Being prepared for 3.5 [his/her] cases 3.6 3.3 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.4 little wasted time 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 61 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average Grades: Application and Knowledge of Law 3.0 Q5. Overall App of Law 3.4 3.4 3.0 5a. Giving reasons for rulings 3.4 3.4 3.1 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.4 outside pressure 3.5 3.0 5c. Being able to identify and 3.4 analyze relevant facts 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. County Judges Average Grade All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 62 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average: How biased do you think Judge Schoon, Jr. is toward the defense or prosecution? Peter E. 0.6 Schoon, Jr. County Judges 0.2 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Defense Prosecution è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 63 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Average: How lenient or how harsh are Judge Schoon, Jr.'s sentences? Peter E. 0 Schoon, Jr. County Judges 0.1 All Trial Judges 0.1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ç Lenient Harsh è Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 64 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey Retention Recommendation 90% 82% 79% 80% 75% 74% 72% 70% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 13% 12% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6%6% 6% 3%3%3% 3%3%3% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S Judge Schoon, Jr. S County Judges Including Undecided Excluding Undecided All Trial Judges Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 65 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving proceedings a sense of dignity?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 56% 65% 69% B 25% 23% 20% C 8% 7% 6% D 5% 2% 2% Fail 6% 2% 2% No Grade 1% 1% 1% Average 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 66 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Treating participants politely and with respect?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 69% 72% B 21% 18% 17% C 4% 6% 5% D 7% 3% 2% Fail 7% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.2 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 2 ## Page 67 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Conducting [his/her] courtroom in a neutral manner?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 57% 66% 70% B 18% 19% 17% C 9% 6% 5% D 6% 4% 3% Fail 8% 4% 3% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 3 ## Page 68 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 1d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before the Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 53% 62% 66% B 20% 20% 18% C 9% 7% 6% D 7% 4% 3% Fail 10% 5% 5% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average 3.0 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 4 ## Page 69 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving participants an opportunity to be heard?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 61% 68% 71% B 17% 17% 16% C 8% 6% 5% D 4% 3% 3% Fail 6% 4% 3% No Grade 3% 2% 2% Average 3.3 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 5 ## Page 70 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Treating those involved in the case without bias?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 66% 69% B 18% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 4% 4% 3% Fail 8% 5% 4% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.2 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 6 ## Page 71 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Treating fairly people who represent themselves?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 46% 51% 49% B 6% 13% 11% C 9% 5% 4% D 2% 3% 2% Fail 7% 4% 4% No Grade 30% 25% 30% Average 3.2 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 7 ## Page 72 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving each side enough time to present his or her case?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 60% 65% 68% B 19% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 5% 4% 3% No Grade 9% 6% 5% Average 3.4 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 8 ## Page 73 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and what's going on in the Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 62% 70% 73% B 20% 18% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 4% 2% 2% No Grade 3% 1% 1% Average 3.4 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 9 ## Page 74 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Using language that everyone can understand?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 71% 74% B 24% 19% 18% C 5% 6% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 10 ## Page 75 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what's being said?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 70% 73% 75% B 16% 17% 16% C 10% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 1% 1% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 11 ## Page 76 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Beginning court on time?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 58% 52% 55% B 24% 26% 26% C 8% 11% 10% D 2% 4% 3% Fail 4% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 4% 3% Average 3.4 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 12 ## Page 77 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 63% 69% 72% B 24% 20% 18% C 6% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 4% 2% 2% Average 3.5 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 13 ## Page 78 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 4c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Setting reasonable schedules for cases?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 51% 56% 58% B 21% 20% 19% C 9% 7% 6% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 2% No Grade 16% 13% 12% Average 3.4 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 14 ## Page 79 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 4d. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Being prepared for [his/her] cases?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 63% 67% B 20% 19% 17% C 7% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 5% 3% 2% No Grade 11% 7% 7% Average 3.3 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 15 ## Page 80 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 4e. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted time?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 55% 59% 61% B 27% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 8% D 2% 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% 3% No Grade 5% 3% 3% Average 3.3 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 16 ## Page 81 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Giving reasons for rulings?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 48% 59% 62% B 23% 19% 18% C 6% 7% 6% D 6% 3% 3% Fail 9% 4% 4% No Grade 9% 7% 7% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 17 ## Page 82 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 41% 55% 58% B 21% 16% 14% C 4% 5% 5% D 6% 3% 2% Fail 7% 4% 3% No Grade 21% 17% 17% Average 3.1 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 18 ## Page 83 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Schoon, Jr. on "Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts?" Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 A 47% 60% 64% B 20% 18% 16% C 4% 6% 5% D 5% 3% 3% Fail 12% 5% 4% No Grade 12% 8% 8% Average 3.0 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 19 ## Page 84 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 6. How biased do you think Judge Schoon, Jr. is towards the defense or the prosecution? Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 6% 3% 2% 4 4% 2% 1% 3 5% 3% 2% 2 4% 3% 3% 1 8% 6% 5% 67% 75% 78% -1 4% 3% 3% -2 2% 2% 2% -3 1% 1% -4 1% 1% 1% -5 2% 2% Average 0.6 0.2 0.1 noitucesorP drawoT esnefeD drawoT Ý 0 Neutral ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 20 ## Page 85 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences handed down by Judge Schoon, Jr. are? Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 5 5% 4% 3% 4 2% 2% 2% 3 2% 2% 2 8% 3% 3% 1 9% 4% 4% 61% 69% 71% -1 3% 5% 5% -2 6% 4% 4% -3 2% 2% 2% -4 1% 1% -5 6% 2% 2% Average 0.1 0.1 hsraH thgiL Ý 0 Appropriate ß Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 21 ## Page 86 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Non Attorney Survey 12. Do you recommend that Judge Schoon, Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Schoon, Jr. Judges 2006 Judges 2006 Strongly Recommend 74% 79% 82% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 12% 10% 9% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 3% 3% 3% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 12% 7% 6% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 22 ## Page 87 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 88 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with all the names and addresses of people from its ICON data base who in the previous 12 months had likely been in each judge’s courtroom who was up for retention in November 2006. These names and addresses where then supplemented from the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system) and the databases of jurors, court employees and sheriff’s security. The data was then combined and cleaned. Where there were more than 400 potential respondents, a random sample was drawn. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was generally: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Survey: Starting in October 2005, each person in the sample database was mailed an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage-paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter, and in some cases reminder postcards. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. Questionnaire: The questionnaire used in the 2006 Judicial Performance Survey asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. For attorney these areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and for non-attorney respondents the five were 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. Copies of the questionnaires are included at the end of this report. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. 1 ## Page 89 Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 684 402 223 56 3 64.3% Attorney For Defendant 5,159 2,760 1895 490 14 59.3% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,925 1,023 689 206 7 59.8% Unknown Attorney Type 963 436 418 107 2 51.1% Attorney Total 8,731 4,621 3225 859 26 58.7% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 5,659 1,161 3,276 1,195 27 26.2% Employee 1,307 600 489 205 13 55.1% Defendant 31,391 3,658 17,494 10,124 115 17.3% Plaintiff 7,688 1,449 4,699 1,506 34 23.6% Juror 16,267 9,482 5,961 795 29 61.4% Other 4,061 401 2,342 1,281 37 14.6% Parole Officers 599 323 136 125 15 70.4% Non-attorney Total 66,972 17,074 34,397 15,231 270 33.0% Total 75,703 21,695 37,622 16,090 296 36.4% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Non-attorney Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to averages for all district or county judges, and all trial judges for which 2006 surveys were conducted. Questions relating to bias toward the defense or prosecution, sentencing and retention recommendation are also graphed. 2 ## Page 90 Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2006, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2006 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains those comments. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 91 Peter E. Schoon, Jr. Responses by Type Total Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Completes Refusals Undeliverable Responses Rate District Attorney 7 4 2 1 0 66.7% Attorney For Defendant 73 40 23 10 0 63.5% Attorney for Plaintiff 21 13 8 0 0 61.9% Unknown/Other Attorney Type 3 1 1 1 0 50.0% Sub Total: 104 58 34 12 0 63.0% Defendant 371 40 205 126 0 16.3% Plaintiff 100 25 64 11 0 28.1% Law Enforcement 94 9 56 29 0 13.8% Employee 13 9 2 2 0 81.8% Juror 65 37 23 5 0 61.7% Parole Officers 9 5 2 2 0 71.4% Sub Total: 652 125 352 175 0 26.2% Grand Total: 756 183 386 187 0 32.2% Judicial Performance Survey 2006 Page 1 ## Page 92 Commission on Judicial Performance 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge [Name]? Attorney Questionnaire _ _ Evaluation of _ [Name of Judge] _ _ 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 not have 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NS). retained in office? DK Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 1. Case Management: A B C D F N/A Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 a. Promptly making rulings during trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 b. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 c. Allotting appropriate amount of time for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Keeping cases moving according to schedule. 4 3 2 1 0 9 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge e. [Civil only]1 Assisting parties to reach agreement. 4 3 2 1 0 9 [Name]? f. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ g. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ h. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ i. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 _ _ DK 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: A B C D F N/A a. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. c. [Civil only]1 Issuing written findings of fact and law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped d. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this e. Having knowledge of relevant substantive law. 4 3 2 1 0 9 survey is very much appreciated. f. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. [Criminal only]2 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Making decisions without fear of being appealed . 4 3 2 1 0 9 1 Please answer questions 1e & 2c only if you have observed the judge in a civil case. 2 Please answer question 2h only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 93 DK 6. [Criminal cases only] 1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the a. Speaking clearly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely b. Makings sure all participants understand unbiased, circle “0.” the proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward c. Using understandable language. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Defense Neutral Prosecution 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 DK 7. [Criminal cases only]1 On the scale below, please indicate by circling the 4. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally handed down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] b. Treating everyone involved politely. 4 3 2 1 0 9 generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” c. Having empathy with the parties involved. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Sentences Appropriate Sentences d. Treating participants with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Too Light Sentences Too Harsh e. Presenting a neutral presence on the bench. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Being consistent in [his/her] behavior 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Conducting [his/her ]courtroom in a neutral 8. If an associate were assigned to Judge [Name] in a case and asked you for manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 advice, what would you say? h. Giving all participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ i. Consistently applying laws and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ j. Not engaging in ex parte communications 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ k. Treating pro se parties fairly. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ DK 9. What would you say are Judge [Name]’s strengths? 5. Diligence: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Making tough decisions when necessary. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Using good judgment in application of relevant ___________________________________________________________ law and rules. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Doing the necessary “homework” and being ___________________________________________________________ prepared for [his/her] cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? when they are complicated and time consuming. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ e. Providing prompt access to the court ___________________________________________________________ in emergency matters. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ [Continued on Back Page] 1 Please answer questions 6 & 7 only if you have observed the judge in a criminal case. ## Page 94 12. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how Commission on Judicial Performance strongly do you recommend that Judge [Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend [he/she] be retained in office................................ 5 Evaluation of Somewhat recommend [he/she] be retained in office............................ 4 [Name of Judge] Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation............. 3 Somewhat recommend [he/she] not be retained in office..................... 2 Strongly recommend [he/she] not be retained in office......................... 1 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 And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). [Name] ? _____________________________________________________________ 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 Thank you for you time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, understanding for those who appear and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is before [him/her]. 4 3 2 1 0 9 very much appreciated. DK 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 95 DK 8. If a friend of yours was scheduled to appear before Judge [Name] as a 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A party in either a civil or criminal case and asked you for advice, what a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 would you tell your friend about Judge [Name] ? 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 _ _ e. Managing court proceedings so that there is _ little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 9. What would you say are Judge [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 10. And what would you say are Judge [Name]’s weaknesses? _ 6. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how biased you think Judge [Name] is toward the defense or the _ prosecution. If you feel Judge [Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” _ Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution 11. Is there anything else that you would like to say about Judge 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 [Name] ? _ 7. [If you were in Judge [Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case _ or cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next _ question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate _ number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed _ down by Judge [Name] are. If you feel Judge [Name] generally hands down _ appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Sentences Appropriate Sentences Too Light Sentences Too Harsh Continued on Back Page 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
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
- 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2006 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026