Timothy J. Schutz

Evaluation history

• 2024 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against · 1 recused

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 64.8% yes

  1,558,761 yes · 846,107 no50% needed to retain
  The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Timothy J. Schutz MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public.Judge Schutz has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals since January 2022, and this is his first time standing for retention as a Court of Appeals Judge. The Commission finds that his opinions are thoughtful, organized, and well-written. At oral argument he has an excellent judicial demeanor, engages with questions, and is conscientious of all parties. The Commission commends Judge Schutz especially for his extraordinary service to the Access to Justice Commission and his efforts on issues surrounding race and the justice system. In sum, the Commission finds judge Schutz is a valuable addition to the Court of Appeals. To conduct its evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Schutz, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. Survey respondents agreed Judge Schutz meets judicial performance standards. 78% of attorneys and 94% of judges who responded to that question answered “yes.” He received an overall score of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale. Judge Schutz received positive comments from lawyers with respect to his courteous and empathetic demeanor during oral arguments, and from fellow judges especially with respect to the valuable perspective that he brings as a former trial court judge. A total of 19 attorneys and 31 judges responded to the survey.
• 2018 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Teller · Teller

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 72.2% yes

  172,078 yes · 66,119 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2018 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2018 Retention Survey Report 2017 Interim Survey Report The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (7-0) agrees that District Judge Timothy Schutz MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Schutz was appointed to the El Paso County District Court in 2010. He received his undergraduate degree from Moorhead State University in 1984 in Psychology and Political Science. Judge Schutz graduated from the University of North Dakota law school in 1987. After law school, Judge Schutz was in private practice in Colorado Springs concentrating his practice in the areas of civil litigation, intellectual property and in the resolution of land use disputes. Judge Schutz served as President of the El Paso County Bar Association in 2004. He has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Colorado Legal Aid Foundation, and served on the Judicial Performance Commission. Additionally, he has been involved with the Pikes Peak Pro Bono Project, the Access to Justice Commission, American Inns of Court, and volunteers with Habitat for Humanity. The Commission commends Judge Schutz for his extensive volunteer work in our community. The Commission interviewed Judge Schutz, observed him in Court, and reviewed his self-evaluation, a number of the Judge’s written decisions, and responses from attorneys and non-attorneys to a survey regarding the performance of Judge Schutz on the El Paso County District Court. Of attorneys responding to the survey, 79% answered yes, Judge Schutz meets performance standards, 13% answered no, does not meet performance standards and 8% had no opinion. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey 78% answered yes, Judge Schutz meets performance standards, 13% answered no, does not meet performance standards and 9% had no opinion. Since 2016, Judge Schutz’s docket has consisted of domestic relations cases, and dependency and neglect cases. Previously, Judge Schutz handled civil and criminal cases.   In response to the survey, attorneys found Judge Schutz to be above average in the areas of case management, demeanor and diligence. Judge Schutz scored at about the average of other District Court Judges in the areas of application and knowledge of the law, and communications. Non-attorneys scored Judge Schutz slightly lower than attorneys. The Commission observes that these lower scores may result from the fact that Judge Schutz handles cases in the emotionally charged areas of divorce and dependency and neglect. Notwithstanding the slight variance in scoring by attorneys and non-attorneys, both attorneys and non-attorneys think Judge Schutz meets judicial performance standards. Judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals rated Judge Schutz’s overall performance as a District Judge to be excellent. Judge Schutz is particularly adept at explaining his rulings to the parties. Additionally, his written opinions are thorough and extremely well written. The Commission believes that Judge Schutz has and is performing well, and that he meets performance standards for an El Paso County District Court Judge.
• 2012 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 72.3% yes

  165,496 yes · 63,541 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a unanimous vote of 8-0, recommends that Judge Timothy J. Schutz BE RETAINED. Two Commissioners were absent. Judge Schutz graduated, with honors, from Moorhead State University in 1984 with a B.A. in Psychology and a minor in Political Science. He graduated from law school at the University of North Dakota in 1987 at which time he was awarded a Juris Doctorate, with distinction. While in law school he served as Editor in Chief of the North Dakota Law Review. Judge Schutz believes that it is important for judges to be active in the community. He particularly enjoys speaking to community and school groups about how our judicial system works, for example: the Our Courts and Teen Court and Judicially Speaking programs. He also has volunteered as a presiding judge in high school mock trial competitions. Judge Schutz has recently participated as an invited speaker regarding diversity at a recent Colorado Bar Association seminar. Judge Schutz was appointed to the District Court effective November 1, 2010. Before being appointed to the bench, Judge Schutz worked for 23 years as a private practitioner in the areas of civil litigation, intellectual property, land use disputes, and representation of special districts. The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Schutz from attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Schutz, conducted a personal interview with Judge Schutz, reviewed sample written orders of the judge, and observed him in courtroom sessions. Judge Schutz sees his primary duty as a judicial officer as making sure that everyone appearing in his court is treated fairly and equally. As part of carrying out this duty, Judge Schutz strives to provide all parties with a full and complete understanding of the court’s procedures and the reasons for his decisions. His stated goal is to bring equal measures of humanity, diligence, and scholarship to his judicial calling. On the evaluation questionnaires, Judge Schutz received high ratings from both attorneys and non-attorneys in almost every category. Of the 39 attorneys surveyed about retention, 74% recommended to retain, 13% not to retain, and 13% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 85% recommended to retain and 15% not to retain. Of the 113 non-attorneys surveyed, 88% recommended to retain, 6% not to retain, and 7% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 94% recommended to retain and 6% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2024 cycle
  • 2023 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Timothy J. Sc hutz 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) . . 3 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) . . 4 Individual Category Scores . . 5 Summary of Responses . . 6 Detailed Report . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) . . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . .10 Methodology and How to Read Results . .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges. .13 Methodology and How to Read Results . .13 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Schutz, 40 attorneys and judges completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 40 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score (Attorneys and Judges) 4 3.7 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Schutz All Appellate Judges All Appellate Judge Schutz Judges Overall Grade 3.7 3.5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores (Attorneys and Judges) 100% 95% 87% 79% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 15% 13% 8% 8% 6% 5% 3% 2% 0% Judge Schutz All Appellate Judges Judge Schutz All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Judge Judge Appellate Appellate Schutz Schutz Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 79% 79% 87% 95% standards No, does not meet 13% 15% 8% 3% performance standards No opinion 8% 6% 5% 2% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.7 General (Attorneys) 3.5 3.4 Writing (Attorneys) 3.3 3.7 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.5 Judge Schutz All Appellate Judges All Judge Appellate Schutz Judges General (Attorneys) 3.7 3.5 Writing (Attorneys) 3.4 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.7 3.5 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge K nowledge Attorneys 110 26% 23% 25 Judges 15 6% - 15 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 6 ## Page 7 Detailed R eport General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Schutz Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Judge Schutz Overall Number of Responses Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side 3.5 3.4 23 of the case Allowing parties to present their 4.0 3.5 22 arguments and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of 4.0 3.6 18 race, sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 4.0 3.5 21 Not engaging in ex parte 4.0 3.9 14 communications Being prepared for oral argument 3.6 3.6 20 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schutz Overall 3.4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Schutz Appellate Judges Number of Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.7 3.4 15 Writing opinions that adequately explain 3.4 3.3 15 the basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.9 3.5 18 Making decisions without regard to 3.8 3.5 16 possible criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon 3.2 3.1 21 the law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.7 3.3 20 not be decided 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Schutz Overall 3.7 Appellate Judges Overall 3.5 Appellate Number of Judge Schutz Overall Judges Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 3.6 15 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.7 3.6 15 Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.8 3.7 14 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.9 3.7 15 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.6 3.6 15 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.3 3.6 13 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.8 3.8 13 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic 3.8 3.8 13 status 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey M ethods – A ttorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schutz, 40 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 40 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 76,755 survey invitations were sent to 10,611 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2023. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 7 judges. In total 7,151 surveys were completed with an additional 10,495 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 9% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 23%.In addition to email, attorney could self-select the judges to evaluate via a public link. Non-attorneys The 2023 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 93,819 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2023 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on July 21st, 2022. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2022 on July 21st, 2022. Reminders were sent on August 3rd and August 10th, 2 022. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2022 with email invitations sent on October 20th, 2022 and reminders was sent on November 3rd, 2 022 and November 9th, 2 022. The final data collection took place in January 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2022 on January 14th, 2 023. Reminders were sent on January 23th a nd January 28th, 2023. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emails, attorneys could self-select via a public link throughout the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2022 and ran through the response deadline of February 3rd, 2023. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 10 ## Page 11 To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 3rd, 2023. During this period 1,296 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 3rd or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2023 were held over for the 2024 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 93,819 5,985 6% Court Staff Email Invite 3,427 1,864 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 113 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 1,296 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 11 ## Page 12 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 12 ## Page 13 Appendix 2. Survey M ethodology - A ppellate Ju dges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2022. A ll 227 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports in 2022. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 37 survey invitations sent. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 12rd, 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 20th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2 023. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 16th , 2023 and a reminder was sent on January 23rd. T he survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 3rd, 2023. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 431 110 0 25 23% Judges 264 15 0 15 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2023 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 14
  • 2024 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Ti mothy J. Schutz 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate C ourt Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results. . 3 Overall Score. . 4 Performance Scores. . 5 Individual Category Scores . . 6 Detailed Report – Attorney Survey . . 7 General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) . . 7 Appellate Writing (Attorneys). . 7 Detailed Report – Judge Survey . . 8 General Evaluation Questions (Judges). . 8 Appellate Writing (Judges) . . 8 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . . 9 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 9 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Appellate Judges. . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . . 15 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Schutz, 50 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 50 responses. Invitation Number of Respondent Type Sent Responses Attorney email invite 938 19 Attorney Survey Website N/A 0 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 0 Total Attorneys - 19 Judges 260 31 Total N/A 50 Respondents were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 3 ## Page 4 Overall Score 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Judge Schutz Overall Judge Schutz Overall Number of Responses Overall Grade 3.5 50 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 4 ## Page 5 Performance Scores Percentage Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 78% 94% 14 29 standards No, does not meet performance 11% 0% 2 0 standards No opinion 11% 7% 2 2 Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 5 ## Page 6 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 General 3.8 3.3 Writing 3.6 Score Attorneys Score Judges Score Number of Responses Attorneys Judges Attorneys Judges General 3.3 3.8 19 30 Writing 3.3 3.6 16 30 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report – At torney Survey General Evaluation Questions (Attorneys) Judge Schutz Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.4 19 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 3.3 18 Appellate Writing (Attorneys) Number of Judge Schutz Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.4 14 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.4 14 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.4 14 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.4 15 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.2 16 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.4 14 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report – Ju dge Survey General Evaluation Questions (Judges) Judge Schutz Number of Responses Overall Is fair and impartial toward each side of the 3.7 30 case. Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. 4.0 21 Appellate Writing (Judges) Number of Judge Schutz Overall Responses Writes opinions that are clear. 3.6 30 Writes opinions that adequately explain the 3.7 30 basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. 3.8 27 Makes decisions without regard to possible 3.7 30 criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law 3.5 30 and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be 3.6 29 decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 8 ## Page 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – At torney and No n- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schutz, 50 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 50 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. A. Response Rates Attorneys The response rate is the number of attorneys that answered at least one survey question divided by the total number of attorneys that were asked to evaluate judges. During the 2024 cycle, 11,083 attorneys were sampled and asked to evaluate 1 or more judges. Among these attorneys, 4,251 responded. The attorney response rate is 38%. The judge completion rate is the total number of attorney/judge pairs (each instance an attorney was asked to evaluate an individual judge with an answer to one or more questions regarding this specific judge) divided by the total number of attorney/judge pairs included in the cycle. During the cycle there was a total of 119,479 pairs with 16,041 responses, for a judge completion rate of 13%. This includes 10,359 responses where the attorneys lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with response to the aspects of judicial performance questions (5,682) divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated she lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (16,041). The evaluation completion rate is 35%. During the course of this cycle, most attorneys were asked to participate in more than one quarterly data collection administration to evaluate different judges, with a maximum of three administrations during the cycle. In addition, attorneys were allowed to evaluate judges who were not included in their invitations. A total of 637 surveys were completed among those attorneys selecting other judges to evaluate. These surveys were not factored in the survey response or completion rates but were factored into the percentage and counts of evaluations with answers to the aspects of judicial performance questions. Non-attorneys Court staff select judges to evaluate. Because they selected judges themselves, the response rate cannot be calculated. Similarly, we don’t know the sample size of the juror survey because the survey was administrated by the court. We also don’t know the sample size of the citizens feedback survey because citizens self select to participate. Thus, the response rate of these groups cannot be calculated. During the 2024 cycle, 117,355 non-attorneys (not including court staff, jurors, and citizens) were sampled and asked to evaluate one or more judges. Among these non-attorneys, 6,614 responded. The non-attorney response rate is 6%. Note that the judge completion rate is equal to response rate among non-attorneys. The evaluation completion rate is the number of evaluations with responses to the aspects of judicial performance questions, 3,794, divided by the total number of responses, including those where the attorney indicated they lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate the judge (6,641). The evaluation completion rate is 57%. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 9 ## Page 10 Summary of Response Rates for Reporting Details of the responses from each group used in reporting aspects of judicial performance are included in the table below. Table 1: Answered Questions About Invitation Method Invitations Sent Aspects of Judicial Performance Attorney Attorney email 119,479 5,682 Attorney Survey Website N/A 21 Court Attorney (self-select) 58 37 Non-attorney Non-attorney email 117,355 3,794 Court Staff Email Invite (Self- 2497 793 select) Appellate Judge 260 992 Citizen Feedback N/A 43 Juror Survey Unknown 42 B. Methodology The 2024 attorney survey was conducted in four cycles online, beginning on September 10, 2023. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first and second quarters of 2023, 2023. Reminders were sent on September 18 and October 10, 2023. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2023 with email invitations sent on November 2, 2023, with reminders sent on November 9, 2023, and November 16, 2023. The final data collection occurred in January 2024. On January 14, 2024, invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the fourth quarter of 2023. Reminders were sent on January 23 and January 28, 2023. Invitations were sent out by request throughout the data collection process. In addition to emailed invitations, throughout the entire data collection period attorneys could self-select via a public link. Data was downloaded for analysis on February 5, 2024. Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 9, 2023, and ran through the response deadline of February 4, 2024. Survey invitations were sent via email in quarterly batches to most non-attorneys, mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are provided with a list of all judges in their district or county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors received email invitations and were also allowed to self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 4, 2024. The survey remained open and any responses for judges received after February 4 were held over for the 2025 evaluation cycle. Citizens could evaluate judges by accessing the survey through a link available on the Colorado OJPE website. C. Questions 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 10 ## Page 11 In the core of the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys (27 attorney and 24 non-attorney) evaluated district and county judges on 50 aspects of judicial performance. These aspects represent the behaviors that judges should or should not demonstrate. The questions asked of attorneys and non-attorneys are listed in the following table: Questions for Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Bases decisions on evidence and arguments Issues consistent decisions when the circumstances are similar Rulings cite the applicable substantive law Consistently applies laws and rules Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Provides written communications that are clear, thorough, and well- reasoned Listens carefully during court proceedings Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom Maintains a professional demeanor in the courtroom Diligence Uses good judgment in application of relevant law and rules Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming Does the necessary “homework” and is prepared for cases Fairness Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner Is fair and impartial to both side. Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 11 ## Page 12 General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 12 ## Page 13 Questions for Non-Attorney to evaluate district and county judges Case Management Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for cases Provides an alternative to in-person hearings when appropriate Application and Knowledge of Law Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts Gives reasons for rulings Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside pressure. Communications Makes sure all participants understand the proceedings Uses language that everyone can understand Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom can understand what's being said Gives reasons for a ruling when needed Demeanor Gives proceedings a sense of dignity Treats participants with respect Has a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear in court Diligence Begins court on time Maintains appropriate control over proceedings. Sets reasonable schedules for cases. Is prepared for cases Manages court proceedings so there is little wasted time. Fairness Gives participants an opportunity to be heard Treats those involved in the case without bias Treats people fairly who represent themselves Gives each side enough time to present their case D. Analysis and Reporting Attorneys were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. For the following questions, the scales were reversed because these are behaviors judges should not demonstrate: Never or Almost Never – 4; Once in a While – 3; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 1; Every or Almost Every Time – 0. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 13 ## Page 14 Application and Knowledge of Law Fails to provide a proper legal basis for a decision Communications When issuing a ruling, the judge fails to provide an explanation for the decision Demeanor Overreacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) disrespectfully in the courtroom. Fairness Unnecessarily restricts a party’s presentation Appears to decide the outcome of the case before all evidence These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories; six categories for district and county judges. The district and county categories were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, and Fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge’s or justice’s written opinions). The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments At the end of each group of questions, attorneys and court staff had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Attorney and court staff also had the option to leave comments about the judge’s strength and weakness. All respondents had the option to leave comments about the judge’s performance in general. 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. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Ap pellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results A. Response Rates All 223 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 37 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves. A total of 71 judges responded and completed 992 evaluations. B. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 16th, 2024 and reminders were sent on January 26th a nd January 31st, 2 024. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 4th, 2 024. C. Questions Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Questions for Attorney to evaluate appellate judges General Is fair and impartial toward each side of the case Conducts hearings in a neutral manner. Writing Writes opinions that are clear. Writes opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. Issues opinions in a timely manner. Makes decisions without regard to possible criticism. Makes reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. Refrains from reaching issues that need not be decided. D. Analysis and Reporting Judges were asked to rate the judges on these aspects of judicial performance using the categories of Never or Almost Never, Once in a While, Some of the Time, Frequently, and Every or Almost Every Time. These categories were converted into a numeric scale from 0 to 4: Never or Almost Never – 0; Once in a While – 1; Some of the Time – 2; Frequently – 3; Every or Almost Every Time – 4. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 15 ## Page 16 The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions, from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores are reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) is reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report includes the distribution of responses for each question, i.e., the percentage of attorneys that indicated they observed this behavior (six categories). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought the judge met judicial performance standards. This is reported in the Performance Scores section of the report. Changes in 2024 Cycle A new system of ratings was developed and used during the 2024 cycle. Prior to the 2024 cycle, the aspects of judicial performance were rated using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. E. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public. 2024 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 16
• 2018 cycle
  • 2017 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Timothy J. Schutz 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 29, 2015 The Honorable Timothy J. Schutz El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Schutz: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2015 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. 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 fifth 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 Timothy J. Schutz received an overall combined average grade of 3.63 in the 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.46, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.80, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 is 3.46 (not shown below). Judge Schutz Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.63 3.46 3.80 Sample Size -- 125 204 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Schutz’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Schutz Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Score Score Size Score Size Year 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 3.52 3.30 39 3.73 113 2012 NA NA NA NA NA 2013 NA NA NA NA NA 2014 3.72 3.54 86 3.89 91 Overall 3.63 3.46 125 3.80 204 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 district judges receiving an interm evaluation in 2015 is 3.84, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. 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 Schutz’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non- jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Schutz Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.96 142 70% 3.43 62 30% 3.84 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Judge Timothy J. Schutz (Sample Size 125) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Sample Size = 125 A B C D Fail DK/NA Schutz Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 11% 3% 1% 0% 35% 3.69 3.35 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 68% 16% 8% 3% 2% 3% 3.49 3.41 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 58% 18% 6% 4% 0% 14% 3.51 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 28% 8% 3% 6% 3% 3.22 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.48 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 66% 12% 9% 4% 3% 6% 3.40 3.31 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 66% 8% 10% 6% 3% 8% 3.39 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 43% 10% 8% 4% 5% 30% 3.17 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 20% 11% 7% 0% 18% 3.24 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.30 3.15 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 76% 18% 3% 1% 0% 3% 3.74 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 63% 17% 4% 3% 1% 13% 3.56 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.65 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 6% 2% 1% 2% 3.67 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 81% 8% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3.65 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 70% 10% 9% 6% 3% 2% 3.40 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 68% 6% 11% 4% 4% 7% 3.39 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 59% 16% 10% 4% 6% 5% 3.25 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 70% 11% 6% 2% 5% 7% 3.49 3.33 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 63% 9% 2% 3% 3% 22% 3.62 3.42 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.45 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.46 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 333 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Schutz Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 4% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 23% Completely neutral 60% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 18% 10% Very biased in favor of the defense 4% 3% Don't know or not sure 2% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 60% 57% Recommend retain 27% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 7% 9% Recommend not retain 1% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 87% 79% Neither 7% 9% Total Not Retain 5% 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 444 ## Page 8 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.46 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.48 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.31 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.69 case after trial. 3.35 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.41 3.51 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.24 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.22 3.24 3.30 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.15 3.40 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.31 3.39 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.18 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.24 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.65 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3.74 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.56 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.33 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy J. Schutz All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy J. Schutz 55 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.53 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.67 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.49 3.65 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.40 neutral manner. 3.26 3.39 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.45 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.25 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.49 being prepared for cases. 3.33 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.62 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 4% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% 60% Completely Neutral 49% 18% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 4% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 2% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Timothy J. Schutz All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 66 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schutz be retained or not retained in office? 60% Strongly recommend retain 57% 27% Recommend retain 22% 7% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Schutz Judges* Total Retain 87% 79% 1% Neither 7% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 5% 12% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy J. Schutz All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 77 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Judge Timothy J. Schutz (Sample Size 204) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Sample Size = 204 A B C D Fail DK/NA Schutz Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 87% 9% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.85 3.66 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 89% 6% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3.83 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 87% 8% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.80 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 84% 9% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3.81 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.82 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 87% 8% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3.82 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 86% 6% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.79 3.57 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 6% 0% 0% 1% 38% 3.79 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present their case. 82% 9% 2% 1% 1% 6% 3.81 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.80 3.61 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 85% 7% 2% 0% 1% 3% 3.81 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 88% 7% 2% 0% 1% 1% 3.84 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 89% 6% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3.85 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.83 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 84% 11% 1% 1% 0% 2% 3.82 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 88% 5% 3% 0% 0% 2% 3.84 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 78% 9% 3% 0% 1% 9% 3.79 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 82% 9% 1% 0% 1% 6% 3.84 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 80% 10% 4% 2% 0% 3% 3.72 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.80 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 78% 9% 3% 1% 1% 7% 3.74 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 6% 2% 1% 1% 19% 3.75 3.59 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 76% 8% 2% 2% 1% 10% 3.74 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.74 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.80 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Schutz Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 9% Competely neutral 89% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 5% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.06 0.05 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 4% 10% Competely neutral 86% 78% Lenient sentencing total 9% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.07 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 87% 74% Recommend retain 10% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 2% 5% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 5% Total Retain 97% 87% Neither 2% 5% Total Not Retain 1% 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.80 Overall Average Grade 3.62 3.82 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.63 3.85 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.66 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.83 3.67 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.80 manner. 3.61 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.81 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.56 3.80 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.61 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.82 heard. 3.64 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.79 case without bias. 3.57 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.79 themselves. 3.60 2d. Giving each side enough time to present 3.81 their case. 3.64 3.83 Q3. Overall Communications 3.70 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.81 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.67 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.84 understand. 3.70 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.85 can hear what's being said. 3.73 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy J. Schutz All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy J. Schutz 11 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 15 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.80 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.61 3.82 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.54 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.84 proceedings. 3.71 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.79 3.61 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.84 3.67 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.72 little wasted time. 3.54 3.74 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.57 3.74 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.56 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.75 possible outside pressure. 3.59 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.74 relevant facts. 3.56 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.06 Timothy J. Schutz 0.05 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.07 Timothy J. Schutz 0.01 All District Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Timothy J. Schutz All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 12 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schutz be retained or not retained in office? 87% Strongly recommend retain 74% 10% Recommend retain 13% 2% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 5% Judge Schutz Judges* 0% Total Retain 97% 87% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 2% 5% Total Not Retain 1% 7% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy J. Schutz All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 Methodolgy The results shown in the 2015 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 District 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 an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 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. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the question about recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all district judges. The 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 District Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 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 50.0% for district judges and 51.0% 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 District 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 that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2015 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 2015. 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 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 District Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2015 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 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 District Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 18 ## Page 22 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall 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 Schutz 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 District Judges surveys for all district judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Timothy J. Schutz 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 145 56 60 0 29 34.1% Defense Attorneys 50 19 12 0 19 50.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3 1 1 0 1 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 146 39 31 0 76 66.1% Total Attorneys 346 117 104 0 125 51.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 455 244 154 26 31 10.3% Law Enforcement 80 50 19 5 6 9.8% Defendant 316 126 177 1 12 8.6% Civil Litigant 17 10 2 1 4 26.7% Jurors 240 83 12 3 142 62.3% Employees, including Interpreters 10 1 3 0 6 85.7% Probation Officers 18 4 11 0 3 42.9% Total Non-attorneys 1136 518 378 36 204 26.9% Grand Total: 1482 635 482 36 329 32.9% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3274 1428 751 0 1095 43.4% Defense Attorneys 3719 1749 506 0 1464 45.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 27 15 2 0 10 40.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2914 1052 331 0 1531 59.3% Other Attorneys Civil 4034 1557 784 0 1693 52.1% GAL 12 0 0 0 12 100.0% Total Attorneys 13980 5801 2374 0 5805 50.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 43 28 12 0 3 9.7% Witness 7172 3752 2195 336 889 17.9% Other 52 29 16 1 6 16.7% Law Enforcement 2858 1657 623 152 426 19.1% Defendant 16581 7287 8265 113 916 11.0% Civil Litigant 8549 4861 2208 134 1346 21.2% Witness 198 90 51 3 54 36.7% Other 233 106 45 14 68 36.2% Jurors 10460 4127 813 157 5363 55.6% Employees, including Interpreters 582 110 93 10 369 75.5% Probation Officers 468 130 96 1 241 64.8% Total Non-attorneys 47196 22177 14417 921 9681 29.5% Grand Total: 61176 27978 16791 921 15486 34.9% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 5805 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. 49% 20% 7% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.41 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 24% 10% 4% 3% 11% 3.24 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 52% 26% 10% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Case Management 3.31 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 25% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.31 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 23% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.18 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 11% 7% 5% 23% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 28% 11% 5% 3% 11% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.15 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3.49 4b. Treating participants with respect. 65% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.39 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 6% 5% 2% 3.26 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 22% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.33 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 18% 6% 3% 2% 14% 3.42 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 23% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 10% 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? Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 9681 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.66 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 11% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.61 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3.56 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.63 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.64 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 11% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.57 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 7% 2% 1% 3% 33% 3.60 2d.Giving each side enough time to present their case. 77% 12% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.64 Overall Fairness 3.61 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 78% 13% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.67 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.70 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.54 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.71 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 8% 3.61 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 11% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3.67 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 17% 6% 2% 2% 3% 3.54 time. Overall Diligence 3.61 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.56 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.59 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 7% 3.56 Overall Application of Law 3.57 Overall Average Grade: 3.62 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.05 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 78% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 87% Neither 5% Total Not Retain 7% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2015 Judicial Performance Interim 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 the 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 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 retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend not retain in office . 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend not retain 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 the 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 the judge. 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 their case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 a. Makings sure participants understand the proceedings, and what’s going on in the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Sentences Appropriate Sentences 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 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. DK 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? 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

    3.4

    judge rating, 0–4 scale

    Attorneys recommend

    78%

    respondent count not on record

    Non-attorneys recommend

    78%

    respondent count not on record
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Timothy J. Schutz 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Performance Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications .10 Demeanor .11 Diligence .12 Performance Score.13 Survey of Appellate Judges.14 Methodology and How to Read Results .14 Results .15 Survey of Non Attorneys .16 Methodology and How to Read Results .16 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Performance Score.24 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Timothy J. Schutz, 88 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 69 agreed they had worked with Judge Schutz enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 69 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 4 3.40 3.44 3.38 3.03 3 2 1 0 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other* Table 1 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.4 3.44 3.38 N/A 3.03 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 1 ## Page 4 Performance Scores Figure 2 100% 78% 79% 78% 80% 64% 60% 40% 27% 20% 13% 13% 13% 9% 8% 9% 9% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Jurors Non-Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Table 2 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Jurors Attorneys Attorneys Other Yes, meets performance 78% 79% 78% 0% 64% standards No, does not meet performance 13% 13% 13% 0% 27% standards No opinion 9% 8% 9% 0% 9% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Overall Category Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Area Attorneys Total Jurors Attorneys Other Case Management 3.51 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.19 3.34 N/A 2.65 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.52 3.65 N/A 3.42 Diligence 3.46 3.28 N/A 3.25 Demeanor 3.54 3.34 N/A 2.91 Fairness N/A 3.27 N/A 2.92 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 92 0 29 32% 17% Total Non- 334 42 59 20% 24% Attorneys Staff 147 0 47 32% 26% Jurors 0 0 0 N/A N/A Other Non- 187 42 12 8% 17% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schutz, 29 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 24 agreed they had worked with Judge Schutz enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 24 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, a total of 20,283 survey invitations were sent to 6,391 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2018. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3.2 judges. In total 3,983 surveys were completed with an additional 1,943 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 29% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on August 8th, 2017. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2017 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on August 8th, 2017 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on August 10th, August 29th, and September 21st. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2017 beginning with a pre-notification letter sent on November 10th, 2017. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on November 20th, December 4th, and December 12th. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in February 2018. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2017. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on February 12th, followed up by email invitations sent on February 15th, and February 19th. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on December 14th and followed by a reminder on January 10th, 2018. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2016 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Survey Attorney Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each categ ory by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 6 ## Page 9 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. 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. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 7 ## Page 10 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Schutz on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 3 0 1 2 3 4 3.51 Case Management Overall Average 3.38 3.61 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.42 3.54 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.43 3.29 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.31 3.5 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.37 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 5 Case Management Judge Timothy J. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Schutz Promptly issuing a decision on the 17 4 1 1 -- 1 24 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 16 6 1 1 -- -- 24 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 13 4 1 3 -- 2 23 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 17 3 3 1 -- -- 24 cases *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 8 ## Page 11 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Schutz on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 0 1 2 3 4 3.19 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.26 3.21 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.35 3.21 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.22 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 2 are similar 3.20 3.17 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.24 3.13 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.25 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 6 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Being able to identify and 15 3 3 2 1 -- 24 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 15 3 3 2 1 -- 24 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- -- 1 -- -- 2 3 similar Being fair and impartial to both 15 2 4 2 1 -- 24 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 13 4 3 2 1 1 24 rules *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 9 ## Page 12 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Schutz on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 0 1 2 3 4 3.52 Communications Overall Average 3.44 3.5 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.55 3.57 Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned 3.35 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 7 Communications Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants 16 6 1 -- 1 -- 24 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 14 6 -- 1 -- 3 24 thorough and well reasoned *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 10 ## Page 13 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Schutz on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 0 1 2 3 4 3.54 Demeanor Overall Average 3.42 3.71 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.50 3.63 Treating participants with respect 3.44 3.29 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.33 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 8 Demeanor Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of 20 3 -- -- 1 -- 24 dignity Treating participants with respect 18 4 1 1 -- -- 24 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 15 5 1 2 1 -- 24 neutral manner *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 11 ## Page 14 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Schutz on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 0 1 2 3 4 3.46 Diligence Overall Average 3.35 Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.17 rules 3.23 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.63 for cases 3.39 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.57 they are complicated and time consuming 3.46 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 9 Diligence Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Using good judgment in application of relevant 16 2 2 2 2 -- 24 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 18 3 3 -- -- -- 24 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 16 4 3 -- -- 1 24 consuming *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 12 ## Page 15 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Schutz meets judicial performance standards? Table 10 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Yes, meets performance 79% standards No, does not meet 13% performance standards No opinion 8% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 13 ## Page 16 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Schutz, 16 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 8 agreed they had worked with Judge Schutz enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 8 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 16 completed the survey. The response rate was 57% and the completion rate was 100%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 16th, 2018. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 14 ## Page 17 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 8 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Overall performance as a judge 3.36 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Timothy J. A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Schutz Overall performance as a 8 -- -- -- -- 7 15 judge *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 15 ## Page 18 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Timothy J. Schutz, 59 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 45 agreed they had worked with Judge Schutz enough to evaluate their performance. This report reflects these 45 responses. a. Response rates During the 2017 administration, 5,130 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 100,869 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 1,334 complete surveys have been received and an additional 569 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 30% and the completion rate is 70%. Among other non-attorneys, 2,824 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,549 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys was 6% and the completion rate was 74%. b. Methodology The 2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning August 17th, 2017 and ending on February 20th, 2018. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on December 5th and a reminder sent on December 13th. Other non-attorneys with court experiences in the first and second quarters of 2017 where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on August 17th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on September 18th, 2017. This process for other non-attorneys was repeated for those who had experience with judges during the third quarter of 2017. For this cycle the pre-notification letter was sent on November 14th, and the survey booklet on December 13th. For respondents with court experiences during the 4th quarter of 2017, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 29th, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 20th. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 16 ## Page 19 In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey opened on August 20th, 2017 and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2018. During this period 54 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20th or for judges not standing for retention in 2018 were held over to be included in the 2019 evaluation cycle. The core questions of this survey matched the regular non-attorney survey with additional demographic questions to identify both the judge and the respondent leaving feedback. When leaving feedback, respondents were required to leave their name and contact information as well as pass a captcha verification check to prevent automated responses. During analysis, these responses were screened so that each respondent could only evaluate each judge or justice once during the cycle and to remove responses for those that provided false or incomplete contact information. c. Questions Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. This question was re-worded from previous survey administrations when respondents were asked how strongly they would or would not recommend a judge for retention. Question Category Areas* Court Staff Other Non-attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Meets Performance Standards 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of question s asked in each catego ry by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 17 ## Page 20 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the respondent with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the meets performance standards question. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exception noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 9 0 1 2 3 4 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 3.56 3.5 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.62 3.5 Treating participants with respect 3.59 3.02 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.52 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.33 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.51 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 12 Demeanor Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 34 7 1 2 2 -- 46 Treating participants with respect 35 2 7 1 1 -- 46 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 23 9 6 5 2 1 46 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 30 8 4 1 3 -- 46 him/her *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 10 0 1 2 3 4 3.27 Fairness Overall Average 3.54 3.46 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.58 2.89 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.49 3.37 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.60 3.37 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.57 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 13 Fairness Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving participants an 30 10 4 1 1 -- 46 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 21 11 7 2 5 -- 46 case without bias Treating fairly people who 22 3 2 -- 3 16 46 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 30 7 6 2 1 -- 46 to present his or her case *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 11 0 1 2 3 4 3.65 Communications Overall Average 3.69 3.65 Making sure all participants understand the proceedings 3.66 3.48 Using language that everyone can understand 3.69 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 3.83 what’s being said 3.72 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 14 Communications Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Making sure all participants understand the 37 6 -- 2 1 -- 46 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 32 7 5 1 1 -- 46 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 39 6 1 -- -- -- 46 hear what’s being said *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 12 0 1 2 3 4 3.28 Diligence Overall Average 3.57 3.24 Beginning court on time 3.56 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.46 for cases 3.61 3.54 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.65 3 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.55 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.15 wasted time 3.51 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 15 Diligence Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Beginning court on time 27 10 4 3 2 -- 46 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 32 7 5 -- 2 -- 46 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 33 7 4 2 -- -- 46 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 26 5 7 2 5 1 46 Managing court proceedings so that there is 29 3 8 4 2 -- 46 little wasted time *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 0 1 2 3 4 3.34 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.52 3.43 Giving reasons for rulings 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.49 outside pressure 3.56 3.22 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.50 Judge Schutz All District Judges Table 16 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Timothy J. Schutz A B C D Fail DK/NA Total Giving reasons for rulings 35 2 5 2 2 -- 46 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 31 3 5 -- 2 5 46 pressure Being able to identify and 29 7 4 3 3 -- 46 analyze relevant facts *Respondents were not required to answer every question. The sum of those giving letter grades may not match the total due to questions being left blank. 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 23 ## Page 26 Performance Score Based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Schutz meets judicial performance standards? Table 17 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Yes, meets performance 78% standards No, does not meet 13% performance standards No opinion 9% 2018 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Timothy J. Schutz 24
• 2012 cycle
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee TTiimmootthhyy JJ.. SScchhuuttzz 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Timothy J. Schutz El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Schutz: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) 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 six 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 appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. 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. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Timothy J. Schutz March 26, 2012 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, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President enc: 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 Timothy J. Schutz received an overall combined average grade of 3.52 in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.30, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.73, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Schutz Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.52 3.30 3.73 Sample Size - 39 113 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. (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 Schutz’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Schutz Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 3.52 3.30 39 3.73 113 Overall 3.52 3.30 39 3.73 113 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 is 3.88, 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 Schutz’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 (see two columns on far right). Judge Schutz Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Schutz Retention Judges Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.95 70 62% 3.37 43 38% 3.88 3.28 Table 3 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy JJ.. SScchhuuttzz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3399)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Sample Size = 39 A B C D Fail DK/NA Schutz Retention Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 36% 15% 3% 3% 0% 44% 3.50 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 23% 8% 5% 0% 5% 3.43 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 54% 21% 8% 3% 0% 15% 3.48 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 46% 26% 5% 8% 8% 8% 3.03 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.36 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 13% 10% 5% 5% 10% 3.23 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 54% 5% 15% 8% 5% 13% 3.09 3.19 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 10% 10% 5% 10% 31% 2.74 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 35% 24% 12% 6% 0% 24% 3.15 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.05 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 69% 23% 0% 3% 0% 5% 3.68 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 18% 5% 5% 0% 23% 3.43 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.56 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 15% 10% 3% 0% 5% 3.54 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 69% 15% 3% 5% 3% 5% 3.51 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 13% 5% 13% 3% 5% 3.24 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 64% 5% 13% 8% 3% 8% 3.31 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.40 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 15% 10% 8% 8% 8% 3.03 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 56% 13% 5% 3% 8% 15% 3.27 3.34 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 49% 13% 0% 3% 5% 31% 3.41 3.41 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.24 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 3.29 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Schutz Retention Sample Size = 39 Judges Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 12% 24% Completely neutral 65% 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 12% 3% Don't know or not sure 6% 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 70% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 15% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 9% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 6% Total Retain 85% 87% Total Not Retain 15% 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 61% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 13% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 13% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 6% Total Retain 74% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 13% 5% Total Not Retain 13% 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.30 Overall Average Grade 3.29 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.36 3.29 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.50 case after trial. 3.32 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.43 proceedings. 3.40 3.48 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.20 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.03 3.22 3.05 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 2a. Being able to identify and analyze 3.23 relevant facts. 3.32 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.09 3.19 2.74 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.15 when circumstances are similar. 3.15 3.56 Q3. Overall Communication 3.42 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.68 the proceedings. 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.43 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.33 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy J. Schutz All District Retention Judges Judge Timothy J. Schutz 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.40 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.54 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.50 3.51 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.24 in a neutral manner. 3.25 3.31 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.24 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.03 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.27 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.41 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.41 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 12% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% 65% Completely Neutral 49% 6% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 12% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 6% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Timothy J. Schutz All District Retention Judges 7 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schutz be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 70% Strongly recommend retain 71% 15% Excluding Und/DK Respondents Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Dist Retention Judge Schutz Judges 9% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 85% 87% 6% Total Not Retain 15% 12% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 61% Strongly recommend retain 67% 13% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Including Und/DK Respondents 13% Undecided or DK All Dist 5% Retention Judge Schutz Judges 8% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 74% 83% 6% Undecided or DK 13% 5% Total Not Retain 13% 12% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy J. Schutz All District Retention Judges 8 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy JJ.. SScchhuuttzz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2233)) ## Page 13 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Timothy J. Schutz Sample Size = 23 All District No Timothy J. Retention Evaluations of Judge Schutz = 7 A B C D Fail Grade Schutz Judges Judge Schutz in terms of overall performance as a judge. 9% 22% 0% 0% 0% 70% 3.29 3.68 The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges questionnaire asks only one question about each of the district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. While 23 out of 28 appellate judges completed the questionnaire, as expected most appellate judges only graded some of the listed district judges, marking the rest as “No Grade.” The number of evaluations shown below the sample size at the top of the page is the number of questionnaires returned with a letter grade for the judge. Please see the copy of the questionnaire in the Questionnaires section. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee TTiimmootthhyy JJ.. SScchhuuttzz ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 133)) ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Sample Size = 113 A B C D Fail DK/NA Schutz Retention Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 82% 13% 3% 0% 1% 2% 3.78 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 9% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3.76 3.69 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 83% 9% 4% 0% 3% 2% 3.72 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.73 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.75 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 83% 10% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3.75 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 83% 6% 5% 1% 2% 3% 3.73 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 55% 8% 1% 0% 2% 35% 3.74 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 78% 10% 3% 1% 2% 6% 3.73 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.74 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 81% 8% 4% 0% 3% 4% 3.73 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 86% 9% 2% 0% 2% 2% 3.80 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 87% 7% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.81 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.78 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 82% 13% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3.76 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 85% 6% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.78 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 12% 4% 0% 2% 12% 3.71 3.62 4d. Being prepared for cases. 79% 13% 2% 0% 1% 5% 3.79 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 77% 13% 5% 2% 1% 2% 3.67 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.74 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 12% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 3.59 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 65% 8% 3% 3% 2% 19% 3.65 3.62 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 12% 3% 3% 2% 8% 3.64 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.63 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.73 3.64 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Timothy J. Schutz Timothy J. All District Schutz Retention Sample Size = 113 Judges 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 5% 9% Competely neutral 85% 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.01 0.05 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 6% 10% Competely neutral 80% 80% Lenient sentencing total 13% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.06 0.04 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/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 92% 87% Somewhat recommend retain 2% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 4% Total Retain 94% 93% Total Not Retain 6% 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 86% 83% Somewhat recommend retain 2% 6% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 4% Total Retain 88% 89% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 5% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.73 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.75 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.65 3.78 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.76 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.72 manner. 3.64 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.73 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.59 3.74 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.75 heard. 3.66 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.73 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.74 themselves. 3.63 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.73 or her case. 3.67 3.78 Q3. Overall Communications 3.71 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.73 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.80 understand. 3.71 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.81 can hear what's being said. 3.72 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Timothy J. Schutz All District Retention Judges Judge Timothy J. Schutz 14 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.74 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.62 3.76 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.53 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.78 proceedings. 3.72 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.71 3.62 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.79 3.69 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.67 little wasted time. 3.56 3.63 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.60 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.59 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.65 possible outside pressure. 3.62 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.64 relevant facts. 3.60 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.01 Timothy J. Schutz 0.05 All District Retention 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 -0.06 Timothy J. Schutz 0.04 All District Retention 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. Timothy J. Schutz All District Retention Judges 15 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 Judge Timothy J. Schutz Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Schutz be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 92% Strongly recommend retain in office 87% 2% Somewhat recommend retain in office Excluding Und/DK Respondents 6% All Dist Retention 2% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Judge Schutz Judges 2% Total Retain 94% 93% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided /Don't Know Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 83% 2% Somewhat recommend retain in office 6% 7% Including Und/DK Respondents Undecided 5% All Dist Retention 2% Judge Schutz Judges Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Retain 88% 89% 2% Undecided 7% 5% 4% Total Not Retain 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Timothy J. Schutz All District Retention Judges 16 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 21 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three 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. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Only judges that are standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated during this reporting cycle (the intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention).  The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was increased from seven to 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an 18 ## Page 22 example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 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. c. 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. 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. 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/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district 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 district retention judges. The 19 ## Page 23 percentages are shown both including and excluding “undecided/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 Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 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 45.7% for district judges and 37.6% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. II Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-eight appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. 20 ## Page 24 The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. e. Cooperation Rate: A questionnaire was sent to 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, though not all 23 showed grades for every district judge. III 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. In 2011, only the judges standing for retention in 2012 were evaluated. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. For this evaluation cycle, the following changes were made to the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey process:  Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online, with the possibility of evaluating up to 10 judges  RPI surveyed all non-attorneys with courtroom experience instead of a random sample of each sub-population (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement personnel, jurors, crime victims, litigants, etc.). The only exception to this is the criminal defendants, for which RPI selected a random sample. As stated above, 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 21 ## Page 25 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 district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. 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/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all district judges standing for retention in 2012 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all district 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 district retention judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “undecided/don’t know” responses. 22 ## Page 26 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 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. 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 Schutz is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all district judges. 23 ## Page 27 Judge Timothy J. Schutz 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 67 24 31 0 12 33.3% Defense Attorneys 16 5 4 0 7 58.3% Civil Other Attorneys Civil 39 7 12 0 20 74.1% Total Attorneys 122 36 47 0 39 52.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 343 169 134 19 21 10.0% Law Enforcement 61 35 17 3 6 13.6% Defendant 126 54 66 0 6 10.0% Civil Litigant 3 0 1 1 1 50.0% Jurors 107 33 3 1 70 67.3% Employees, including Interpreters 10 1 3 0 6 85.7% Probation Officers 18 4 11 0 3 42.9% Total Non-attorneys 668 296 235 24 113 26.1% Grand Total: 790 332 282 24 152 29.9% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Retention Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 2526 1265 381 0 880 41.0% Defense Attorneys 3297 1732 263 0 1302 42.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 22 13 0 0 9 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2327 1053 103 1 1170 52.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2328 1099 246 0 983 47.2% GAL 11 1 0 0 10 90.9% Total Attorneys 10511 5163 993 1 4354 45.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 52 36 10 0 6 14.3% Witness 7389 3621 2563 353 852 17.7% Other 1084 619 301 15 149 19.0% Law Enforcement 3846 2060 925 142 719 24.6% Defendant 14840 6599 7050 107 1084 13.9% Civil Litigant 6881 3945 1545 101 1290 24.2% Witness 123 58 25 1 39 39.8% Other 126 51 30 10 35 36.5% Jurors 13266 4866 907 173 7320 59.2% Employees, including Interpreters 704 135 95 13 461 75.7% Probation Officers 572 160 116 2 294 64.5% Total Non-attorneys 48883 22150 13567 917 12249 34.7% Grand Total: 59394 27313 14560 918 16603 37.0% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 A Final Word Regarding the Survey Results The most frequently asked question that we receive from judges regarding the survey statistics is, “What is the margin of sampling error associated with these results?” The answer to this question is that a margin of error cannot be calculated since we are not selecting a random sample of eligible respondents (attorneys and non-attorneys) to be surveyed; instead, we are attempting to survey all members of the eligible population. Since we are not generating a random sample, we cannot estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. Every eligible respondent in the attorney and non-attorney population is now given an opportunity to evaluate judges with whom they have had a recent experience.1 The only exception is among the criminal defendant population, in which, due to its size, a random sample is selected. The respondents know the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decide whether to respond to it. Measures are taken to increase the response rate so that concerns regarding sampling bias can be mitigated. The higher the response rate, the more confident we can feel the results of the respondents are similar to the results of the non- respondents. Attorneys and non-attorneys receive multiple waves of reminders via email or mail to complete the survey. Further, all non-responding attorneys are then contacted on the telephone and given the opportunity to complete the evaluation with the professional interviewer. RPI has contacted hundreds of non-responding attorneys to encourage their participation. We have been informed by the vast majority of the non-responding attorneys that the primary reason for not participating in the survey is because of a lack of sufficient information to evaluate that particular judge. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Commissions on Judicial Performance to have a summary of results from structured interviews among stakeholders who have courtroom familiarity with each judge being evaluated. We are continuing to take steps to increase cell sizes and cooperation rates for each judge in order to further enhance this evaluation program. 1 Attorneys have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. Among the non- attorney population, court staff, probation officers, and interpreters also have the opportunity to evaluate up to 10 judges on an online survey. The remaining non-attorney populations are mailed a paper survey with the opportunity to evaluate one judge. 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 4354 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 48% 20% 8% 4% 2% 18% 3.32 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 47% 25% 11% 5% 3% 10% 3.20 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 50% 28% 11% 5% 3% 3% 3.22 Overall Case Management 3.29 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 26% 10% 4% 2% 2% 3.32 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 12% 6% 3% 3% 3.19 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 20% 11% 7% 5% 22% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 27% 11% 5% 3% 13% 3.15 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 25% 6% 2% 1% 3% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 24% 9% 3% 2% 11% 3.33 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.42 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 6% 3% 2% 1% 3.50 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 20% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 20% 9% 6% 4% 2% 3.25 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 53% 23% 10% 5% 3% 5% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 25% 11% 6% 3% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 2% 4% 3.34 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 56% 19% 6% 4% 2% 13% 3.41 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 4354 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 24% Completely neutral 49% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 12% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 12% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Retention Judges Average Sample Size = 12249 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 79% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 79% 12% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.64 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 15% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.59 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.65 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.66 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 8% 2% 1% 2% 34% 3.63 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 77% 12% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.67 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 79% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 15% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.71 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 13% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.71 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 68% 20% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.53 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 15% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.62 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.69 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.56 time. Overall Diligence 3.62 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 71% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.59 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 66% 10% 3% 2% 3% 16% 3.62 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 12% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.60 Overall Application of Law 3.60 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 33 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All District Retention Judges Grade Sample Size = 12249 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 9% Competely neutral 84% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 80% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.04 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 87% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 93% Total Not Retain 6% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 83% Somewhat recommend retain 6% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 89% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 6% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 34 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Retention Judges DK/ Sample Size = 23 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012. 38% 15% 1% 0% 0% 46% 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. 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 35 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 36 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. Makings 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 37 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 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 38 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 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 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 39 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page ## Page 40 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 8th Judicial District No Grade Christopher J. Munch .... A B C D F Devin R. Odell ............... A B C D F Christie B. Phillips ......... A B C D F John David Williams...... A B C D F 2nd Judicial District 9th Judicial District Ann Frick ....................... A B C D F James B. Boyd .............. A B C D F Shelley I. Gilman ........... A B C D F Daniel B. Petre .............. A B C D F Christina M. Habas ........ A B C D F 10th Judicial District Morris B. Hoffman ......... A B C D F David W. Crockenberg .. A B C D F Kenneth M. Laff ............. A B C D F Deborah R. Eyler .......... A B C D F Catherine A. Lemon ...... A B C D F 11th Judicial District R. Michael Mullins ......... A B C D F Charles M. Barton ......... A B C D F Karen Ashby .................. A B C D F Julie G. Marshall ........... A B C D F 3rd Judicial District 12th Judicial District Claude W. Appel ........... A B C D F Pattie P. Swift ................ A B C D F 4th Judicial District 13th Judicial District Theresa M. Cisneros ..... A B C D F Michael K. Singer .......... A B C D F Robert L. Lowrey ........... A B C D F Charles M. Hobbs ......... A B C D F Timothy J. Schutz .......... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Larry E. Schwartz .......... A B C D F Michael A. O’Hara, III .... A B C D F Scott Sells ..................... A B C D F 15th Judicial District David L. Shakes ............ A B C D F P. Douglas Tallman....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 41 16th Judicial District No Grade M. Jon Kolomitz ............. A B C D F 17th Judicial District Chris Melonakis ............. A B C D F Edward C. Moss ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Marilyn Antrim ............... A B C D F Christopher C. Cross ..... A B C D F J. Mark Hannen ............. A B C D F Kurt A. Horton................ A B C D F Michael Spear ............... A B C D F 19th Judicial District James F. Hartmann, Jr. . A B C D F Elizabeth Strobel ........... A B C D F Todd L. Taylor ............... A B C D F Dinsmore Tuttle ............. A B C D F 20th Judicial District Dolores D. Mallard ........ A B C D F Thomas F. Mulvahill ...... A B C D F 22nd Judicial District Todd J. Plewe................ A B C D F Please use the following pages or attach a sheet for comments you would like to make about any of these district judges. 2 ## Page 42 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 43 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4

Score cards render where the PDF extractor found numeric fields (partial is shown with “—” for missing tiles). “Read full survey text” surfaces the complete report transcription for every survey on file. Source PDFs on OJPE are always linked above for fidelity. Coverage note on Sources.

Sources

• 2024 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2018 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026