Arthur R. Smith Jr.

Trial Court · Mesa · Mesa

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2002 retention cycle
Trial Court · Mesa · Mesa
Meets Standards(Retain)
Retention Year: 2002 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2002 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Arthur R. Smith, Jr. BE RETAINED. Judge Smith is an experienced, efficient County Judge who heard approximately 7,100 cases in 2001, the majority of which were traffic and misdemeanor cases. Both attorneys and non-attorneys rate Judge Smith as above average for all county judges on treating parties equally regardless of race, gender, age and socio-economic status. He is considered a fair and impartial judge to both sides of cases before him. Judge Smith enjoys carrying out his responsibilities, telling the Commission that in 19 years on the bench there never has been a day when he did not look forward to coming to work. Judge Smith is aware he needs to articulate more clearly his verbal rulings and orders, and that is a goal he has set for himself. Of the attorneys and non-attorneys surveyed who appeared before Judge Smith, 86% and 84% respectively recommended Judge Smith be retained in office.

Surveys & reports

2002 cycle
- 2002 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Arthur R. Smith, Jr. P.O. Box 20,000 Grand Junction, CO 81502-5030 Dear Judge Smith, Jr.: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of people who have been in the courtroom of judges who face a retention vote in the next general election. The 2002 survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc., who attempted to contact over 55,000 people who had been in these courtrooms in one capacity or another. Over 18,000 people responded—3,686 to the attorney survey and 14,925 to the non-attorney survey. This report contains the results of those who were in your courtroom and who responded to the survey. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Results: This section contains the average and percentage distribution of responses to each substantive numerical question in the survey. It is divided into two subsections, one for the results of the attorney survey and one for the results of the non-attorney survey. · Comments: Respondents were also asked to comment about each judge on each section of the questionnaire: courtesy, impartiality, communications skills, judicial temperament, diligence, application of the law, retention and general comments. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. Again this section has been divided into two subsections, one for attorney comments and one for non-attorney comments. · Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. 100 Arapahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 2 March 6, 2002 The Honorable Arthur R. Smith, Jr. Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Director of the Colorado Judicial Performance Program, Michelle Stermer, at 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 3 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being courteous toward parties or witnesses? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 64% 65% B 21% 22% 21% C 7% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being courteous toward attorneys? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 79% 64% 61% B 17% 20% 22% C 3% 7% 8% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 1c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being courteous toward pro se parties? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 55% 48% B 14% 17% 14% C 10% 8% 6% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 10% 16% 29% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 3 ## Page 6 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 72% 67% 63% B 14% 15% 12% C 3% 4% 3% D 1% 1% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 10% 12% 19% Average Grade 3.8 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 4 ## Page 7 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 76% 69% 66% B 14% 16% 14% C 3% 5% 5% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% No Grade 3% 8% 12% Average Grade 3.7 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 5 ## Page 8 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 79% 70% 66% B 10% 14% 13% C 5% 4% D 1% 1% Fail 1% No Grade 10% 10% 15% Average Grade 3.9 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 6 ## Page 9 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 66% 65% B 14% 15% 13% C 3% 6% 5% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 14% 10% 13% Average Grade 3.8 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 7 ## Page 10 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 60% 60% B 45% 18% 17% C 7% 9% 8% D 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% 5% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 8 ## Page 11 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating pro se parties fairly? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 58% 51% B 21% 14% 11% C 3% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 2% 1% No Grade 24% 19% 31% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 9 ## Page 12 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on not engaging in ex parte communications? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 56% 59% B 10% 15% 12% C 3% 6% 4% D 2% 1% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 24% 18% 21% Average Grade 3.8 3.4 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 10 ## Page 13 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on providing written communications that are clear, thorough, and well reasoned? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 17% 29% 37% B 28% 22% 23% C 21% 8% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 34% 37% 27% Average Grade 2.9 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 11 ## Page 14 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on communicating verbally in a clear, thorough, and well reasoned manner? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 24% 51% 54% B 41% 30% 28% C 24% 10% 9% D 10% 4% 4% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 3% Average Grade 2.8 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 12 ## Page 15 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 3c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 24% 53% 54% B 41% 27% 26% C 24% 10% 9% D 7% 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 3% 6% 7% Average Grade 2.9 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B- B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 13 ## Page 16 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 62% 64% B 31% 21% 21% C 7% 7% D 5% 4% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 2% 3% Average Grade 3.7 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade A- B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 14 ## Page 17 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 57% 57% B 24% 22% 22% C 14% 9% 8% D 5% 5% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 3% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 15 ## Page 18 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on managing cases and docket efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 47% 46% B 31% 27% 27% C 7% 11% 11% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 4% No Grade 10% 8% 8% Average Grade 3.5 3.2 3.2 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 16 ## Page 19 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being punctual in commencing proceedings? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 69% 51% 54% B 28% 27% 28% C 3% 11% 9% D 3% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% Average Grade 3.7 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade A- B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 17 ## Page 20 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on using court time efficiently? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 53% 54% B 24% 24% 25% C 7% 11% 10% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 3% 5% 5% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 18 ## Page 21 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 5d. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being prepared for all court matters? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 55% 56% 58% B 41% 25% 23% C 3% 8% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 7% 7% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 19 ## Page 22 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 5e. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 48% 49% B 24% 18% 18% C 10% 7% 7% D 3% 3% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 24% 21% 21% Average Grade 3.4 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 20 ## Page 23 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 5f. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on providing quick access to the court in emergency matters? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 52% 35% 33% B 14% 14% 13% C 10% 5% 5% D 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% No Grade 24% 43% 45% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 21 ## Page 24 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 45% 47% 53% B 28% 28% 25% C 14% 12% 9% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 3% 2% No Grade 10% 7% 7% Average Grade 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 22 ## Page 25 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on ruling on motions in a timely matter? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 41% 48% 49% B 24% 24% 25% C 10% 8% 8% D 3% 3% 3% Fail 2% 3% No Grade 21% 16% 13% Average Grade 3.3 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 23 ## Page 26 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on making the correct decision based upon the law and the facts? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 28% 40% 44% B 38% 30% 29% C 17% 13% 12% D 6% 5% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 14% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.0 3.0 3.1 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 24 ## Page 27 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on making decisions without regard to possible criticism? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 34% 49% 50% B 24% 21% 20% C 10% 9% 8% D 4% 3% Fail 3% 4% 3% No Grade 28% 14% 15% Average Grade 3.2 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B B Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 25 ## Page 28 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Smith Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 86% 83% 84% Do not retain in office 3% 11% 11% No opinion 10% 6% 5% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 26 ## Page 29 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 1a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being courteous toward everyone in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 65% 67% B 22% 20% 19% C 7% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 1 ## Page 30 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 1b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being courteous toward persons representing themselves? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 49% 49% 47% B 14% 16% 15% C 5% 6% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 2% No Grade 28% 24% 30% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 2 ## Page 31 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of race? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 63% 65% B 13% 15% 14% C 5% 4% 4% D 2% 1% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 14% 15% 14% Average Grade 3.6 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 3 ## Page 32 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of gender? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 65% 67% B 12% 16% 16% C 7% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 10% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 4 ## Page 33 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of age? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 64% 67% B 14% 16% 16% C 9% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 1% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 11% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 5 ## Page 34 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties equally regardless of social/economic status? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 66% B 11% 16% 15% C 7% 5% 5% D 4% 2% 2% Fail 1% 3% 3% No Grade 9% 10% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 6 ## Page 35 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being fair and impartial toward both sides? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 63% 65% B 15% 16% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 3% 4% 4% No Grade 8% 8% 7% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 7 ## Page 36 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on treating parties without attorneys fairly? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 46% 45% 43% B 10% 13% 12% C 3% 5% 4% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 37% 31% 37% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 8 ## Page 37 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on giving each side enough time to present his or her case? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 60% 63% B 12% 16% 16% C 6% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 2% 3% 3% No Grade 15% 14% 11% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 9 ## Page 38 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 3a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on speaking in a way that is clearly understood? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 63% 68% 70% B 24% 20% 19% C 8% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 2% 2% 1% No Grade 2% 2% 2% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 10 ## Page 39 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 3b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 67% 69% B 23% 19% 18% C 6% 6% 6% D 3% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 4% 4% 4% Average Grade 3.5 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 11 ## Page 40 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 4a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on maintaining a professional demeanor in the courtroom? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 71% 69% 72% B 18% 17% 16% C 7% 6% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 3% 3% 3% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 12 ## Page 41 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 4b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on listening patiently to all testimony and arguments before issuing a ruling? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 68% 64% 66% B 18% 18% 17% C 6% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 2% 4% 3% No Grade 5% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 13 ## Page 42 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 61% 55% 56% B 19% 23% 22% C 6% 9% 8% D 4% 2% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 11% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.5 3.4 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 14 ## Page 43 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on starting court on time? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 65% 55% 57% B 21% 23% 23% C 8% 9% 9% D 1% 3% 3% Fail 3% 2% No Grade 6% 6% 6% Average Grade 3.6 3.3 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 15 ## Page 44 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 5c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on being prepared for cases? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 64% 61% 64% B 19% 19% 18% C 7% 7% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 7% 9% 9% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 16 ## Page 45 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6a. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on considering all information presented when making a decision? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 62% 60% 62% B 17% 17% 16% C 8% 6% 5% D 1% 3% 2% Fail 1% 4% 4% No Grade 10% 10% 11% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 17 ## Page 46 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6b. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on having knowledge of the rules of evidence, procedure and the law? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 67% 64% 67% B 14% 17% 16% C 8% 5% 5% D 1% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 10% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 18 ## Page 47 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6c. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on deciding important matters in a timely way? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 66% 60% 62% B 16% 19% 18% C 7% 6% 6% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 1% 2% 2% No Grade 9% 11% 10% Average Grade 3.6 3.5 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 19 ## Page 48 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 6d. How would you grade Judge Smith Jr. on making decisions without regard to public criticism? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 A 57% 53% 55% B 13% 15% 14% C 8% 5% 5% D 2% 2% 2% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 21% 21% 22% Average Grade 3.6 3.4 3.5 Letter Grade B+ B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 20 ## Page 49 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Non-Attorney Survey 7. Do you recommend that Judge Smith Jr. be retained in office or not be retained in office? Judge All County All Trial Smith Jr. Judges 2002 Judges 2002 Retain in office 84% 81% 83% Do not retain in office 5% 9% 8% No opinion 11% 11% 9% Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21 Page 21 ## Page 50 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with a list of cases heard and closed during the two years prior to the summer of 2001 by the 115 justices and judges standing for retention in November 2002. From this list of cases, Talmey-Drake Research drew a sample of the 250 cases most recently closed for each judge or justice. In some instances where there were an insufficient number of cases (or participants in cases), the time period during which cases could be drawn was lengthened. For each case selected a list of people associated with the case who had likely appeared in the judge’s courtroom were drawn from the Judicial Department’s database, ICON, and the Colorado District Attorney’s database (Blackstone system). The cases and the associated case participants were divided up among the 22 judicial districts and put on CD ROM. These CD’s were distributed to the judicial districts, and district personnel added the names of people who were associated with a case, but whose names and addresses had not been captured electronically. The data from the judicial districts were then returned to Talmey-Drake Research where the data was combined and cleaned. Included in the data cleaning was the identification of potential respondents in the sample who had appeared in more than two judges’ courtrooms. Due to concerns about respondent fatigue, no more than two questionnaires were intended to be sent to any one respondent—though there were a few instances where one respondent did receive more than two questionnaires. Where a person had been in more than two judges’ courtrooms, the selection criteria for which judges he or she would be sent questionnaires was: first, for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often, and two, the judge with the smallest sample of the judges in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in. Added to this database were a database of jurors and one of court employees. Survey: In November 2002, each person in the database was mailed a postcard saying they would receive a questionnaire concerning judicial performance and that it was important for them to fill it out and return it. Shortly thereafter, they were sent an initial questionnaire and an introductory letter with a postage- paid return envelope. Those who did not respond to the first questionnaire were then sent a sent a second questionnaire and letter. Non-respondents to the second survey were sent a reminder postcard. At this point, non- responders who had been sent questionnaires about judges who had not yet achieved a target cooperation rate of 40% were sent a third letter and questionnaire—and a follow up postcard. During this process, the sample was augmented for judges with a particularly low number of completed questionnaires. 1 ## Page 51 Questionnaire:The questionnaire used in the 2002 Judicial Performance Survey is identical to the questionnaire used for the 2000 survey. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the justice’s or judge’s performance in the areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial Temperament, Diligence and Application of the Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. Response: The response rate is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the overall response rate as well as the response rate by the different types of respondents. Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Attorney Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate District Attorney 852 511 227 42 72 69.2% Attorney For Defendant 3,277 1,921 809 223 324 70.4% Attorney for Plaintiff 1,711 1,001 428 92 190 70.0% Guardian ad Litem 85 47 22 9 7 68.1% Unknown Attorney Type 460 206 112 102 40 64.8% Attorney Total 6,385 3,686 1,598 468 633 69.8% Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Non-Attny Respondents Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Law Enforcement 6,918 2,517 2,648 577 1,176 48.7% Social Services Casewrkr 117 61 36 15 5 62.9% Employee 1,946 1,142 526 105 173 68.5% Defendant 15,701 2,467 7,511 5,109 614 24.7% Plaintiff 3,276 943 1,538 553 242 38.0% Juror 12,910 6,565 4,443 776 1,126 59.6% Victim 3,158 414 1,601 788 355 20.5% Other 4,611 816 2,288 951 556 26.3% Non-attorney Total 48,637 14,925 20,591 8,874 4,247 42.0% Total 55,022 18,611 22,189 9,342 4,880 45.6% A similar table showing the response count and cooperation rate for your survey is provided at the end of this methodology section. 2 ## Page 52 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Results and Comments. Within each main section are two subsections, one for each general type of respondent, attorney or non-attorney. Results: This section shows the percentage distribution of grades you received on each of the substantive questions plus the retain/do not retain question. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes two comparative columns of results: one comparative column shows the results for that question for all county or district judges (as appropriate) surveyed in 2002, along with a second comparative column showing the results for all trial judges in the 2002 survey. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance in the six areas of Courtesy, Impartiality, Communication, Judicial temperament, Diligence, Application of the law as well as the judge’s Overall performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and non-attorneys. Sampling All sample surveys are subject to what is known as sampling error—the Error: extent to which the results of the sample survey may differ from what would be obtained if the entire population being surveyed had been interviewed. The size of the sampling error is almost entirely due to the number of people interviewed for the survey and the variance of responses. The table below shows the extent of sampling error (95%-confidence interval) for various sizes of random samples and sample percentage results. Sample Size 25 50 100 150 200 300 Percentages near 10% or 90% ± 11.8% ± 8.3% ± 5.9% ± 4.8% ± 4.2% ± 3.4% Percentages near 20% or 80% ± 15.7% ± 11.1% ± 7.8% ± 6.4% ± 5.5% ± 4.5% Percentages near 30% or 70% ± 18.0% ± 12.7% ± 9.0% ± 7.3% ± 6.4% ± 5.2% Percentages near 40% or 60% ± 19.2% ± 13.6% ± 9.6% ± 7.8% ± 6.8% ± 5.5% Percentages near 50% ± 19.6% ± 13.9% ± 9.8% ± 8.0% ± 6.9% ± 5.7% For example, suppose a reported percentage is 80% in a sample size of 150, then one could expect that 95% of the time that a random sample of the same size and collected the same way would include the true population percentage within the range of 80% plus or minus 6.4%. Averages such as grade points also have a 95% confidence interval, however it is not so easily displayed in a table as confidence intervals about a percentage. Suffice it to say that the confidence interval about a score generally increases with smaller sample size. 3 ## Page 53 Judge Arthur R. Smith Jr. Survey Disposition Report Total Refusals & Undeliv- Other Response Sent Completes Nonresponse erables Response Rate District Attorney 7 3 1 3 75.0% Attorney For Defendant 29 22 1 4 2 95.7% Attorney for Plaintiff 5 4 1 80.0% Guardian ad Litem Unknown Attorney Type Sub Total: 41 29 3 7 2 90.6% Law Enforcement 57 25 13 7 12 65.8% Social Services Caseworker Employee 8 6 1 1 85.7% Defendant 165 38 70 48 9 35.2% Plaintiff 31 11 16 1 3 40.7% Juror 285 98 92 35 60 51.6% Victim 23 5 8 7 3 38.5% Other 47 8 26 11 2 23.5% Sub Total: 616 191 226 109 90 45.8% Total: 657 220 229 116 92 49.0% 1. 'Other Response' predominately includes people who sent back a survey saying they did not appear in the courtroom, and people who are deceased, or otherwise incapable of responding, and people who could not recall the experience. 2. The Response Rate is calculated using the following formula: Completes (Total Sent - Undeliverables - Other Responses) Judicial Performance Survey 2002 Judicial District 21

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

2002 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026