David John Stevens

Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe

Meets Standards(Retain)1 cycle on record

Evaluation history

2016 retention cycle
Trial Court · Arapahoe · Arapahoe
Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
Meets Standards(Retain)
VotersRetained· 70.8% yes
268,127 yes · 110,528 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge David John Stevens BE RETAINED. Judge Stevens received his undergraduate degree from Michigan State University and his law degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Prior to being appointed to the bench in June 2014 by Governor Hickenlooper, Judge Stevens was in private practice in complex injury litigation, including medical malpractice. He has over 30 years of experience. Judge Stevens is active in his community and serves on the Access to Justice Committee for Arapahoe County and is a Trustee on the Colorado Bar Foundation Board of Trustees. He is also a Past President of the Arapahoe County Bar Association and served on the CBA Board of Governors for over ten years. Judge Stevens also contributes to his community in many other ways including being a mentor to several new lawyers, being on the Arapahoe County Bar Association Board, the Arapahoe County Bar Foundation Board, the CBA/DBA Professionalism Coordinating Council, the Arapahoe County Justice Coordinating Council, the Colorado Office of Dispute Resolution Advisory Council and is a frequent lecturer on various substantive areas of law and trial tactics. Before recommending the retention of Judge Stevens, the Commission conducted extensive research, including reviewing orders written by Judge Stevens, observing him in court, reviewing surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys, studying Judge Stevens’ personal self-evaluation, engaging in meetings to analyze Judge Stevens’ performance and conducting an in-person interview with him. In surveys sent to attorneys, appellate judges and non-attorneys, Judge Stevens received superb marks from all three groups. He was routinely scored by attorneys above all district judges for the various scoring criteria, including case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, demeanor and diligence. While Judge Stevens was scored by non-attorneys slightly lower than all District Judges for the various criteria areas, the Commission believes this is related to the nature of his domestic docket and the lower number of survey results received from non-attorneys. Of the 45 attorneys who completed the survey, 91% recommended that Judge Stevens be retained, 2% recommended not to retain and 7% made no recommendation. Of the 34 non-attorneys who completed the survey, 72% recommended he be retained, 15% recommended not to retain and 12% made no recommendation. Surveys described him as being thoroughly prepared, intelligent and patient, with excellent judicial demeanor and control over the courtroom. Judge Steven’s current docket is 100% domestic relations. The Commission was impressed with the overwhelming number of positive responses Judge Stevens received from attorneys and non-attorneys, as well as his personal interview with the Commission. Such high survey results and scores are rare for a newer judge sitting on the domestic docket. The Commission believes this is a strong reflection of the quality of Judge Stevens’ work. He is a dedicated judge who should be retained.

Surveys & reports

2016 cycle
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable David J. Stevens 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge David J. Stevens, 122 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 79 agreed they had worked with Judge Stevens enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 79 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 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.45 Attorneys 3.55 Total Non-Attorneys 3.32 N/A Juror Non-Attorney Other* 3.32 Table 1 Judge David J. Stevens Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.45 3.55 3.32 N/A 3.32 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 83% Attorneys 91% Total Non-Attorneys 72% Juror Non-Attorney Other 72% Table 2 Judge David J. Stevens Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 83% 91% 72% N/A 72% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge David J. Stevens Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.55 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.49 3.23 N/A 3.23 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.55 3.28 N/A 3.28 Diligence 3.44 3.46 N/A 3.46 Demeanor 3.71 3.30 N/A 3.30 Fairness N/A 3.33 N/A 3.33 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 192 4 45 41% 42% Total Non- 374 53 34 14% 24% Attorneys Staff 15 0 5 53% 38% Jurors 0 0 0 NA NA Other Non- 359 53 29 12% 22% 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Stevens, 77 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 45 agreed they had worked with Judge Stevens enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 45 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 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 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 42% 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 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 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 September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. 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 October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. 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 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 5 ## Page 8 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). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. 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 Attorney Survey 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 Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category 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 attorney. 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 bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 6 ## Page 9 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 exceptions 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. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge David J. Stevens be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge David J. Stevens Total Retain 91% Neither 7% Total Not Retain 2% Figure 3 100% 80% 80% 67% 60% 40% 20% 11% 13% 7% 6% 5% 9% 2% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Stevens All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Stevens 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 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 3.55 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.56 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.55 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.57 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.47 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 6 Case Management Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 45 Stevens Judges Promptly issuing a decision 59% 15% 11% -- 2% 13% 3.47 3.41 on the case after trial Maintaining appropriate 71% 16% 9% -- 2% 2% 3.57 3.38 control over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 58% 20% 4% -- 2% 16% 3.55 3.32 motions Setting reasonable schedules 64% 24% 4% -- 2% 4% 3.56 3.29 for cases Case Management Overall Average 3.55 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 9 ## Page 12 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 Stevens 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 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.49 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.51 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 3.56 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 2.00 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.49 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 45 Stevens Judges Being able to identify and 63% 17% 13% 2% 2% 2% 3.40 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 65% 13% 13% -- 2% 7% 3.49 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- -- 100% -- -- -- 2.00 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 72% 13% 11% -- 2% 2% 3.56 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 70% 9% 11% 2% 2% 7% 3.51 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.49 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Stevens 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 3.39 Communications Overall Average 3.55 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 3.54 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 8 Communications Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 46 Stevens Judges Making sure all participants 71% 18% 4% -- 2% 4% 3.63 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 65% 15% 4% -- 4% 11% 3.54 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.55 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Stevens 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 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 3.71 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.72 3.33 Treating participants with respect 3.67 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.74 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 9 Demeanor Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 46 Stevens Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 85% 9% 4% -- 2% -- 3.74 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 80% 13% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.67 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 83% 11% 4% -- 2% -- 3.72 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.71 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Stevens 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. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 3.44 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 3.54 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 3.47 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 3.45 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 10 Diligence Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 45 Stevens Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 70% 7% 15% 2% 2% 4% 3.45 3.16 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 65% 15% 9% -- 4% 7% 3.47 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 61% 13% 9% -- 2% 15% 3.54 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.44 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Stevens in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 100% 80% 60% 51% 40% 23% 20% 11% 11% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Stevens All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Stevens, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Stevens enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed 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. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. 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 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 15 ## Page 18 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 16 ## Page 19 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 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Stevens 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge David J. All Stevens Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Stevens Judges Responses: 7 Overall performance as a 33% -- -- -- -- 67% 4.00 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge David J. Stevens, 45 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 34 agreed they had worked with Judge Stevens enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 34 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. 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 October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th 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 October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, 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 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category 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. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney 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 bias and retention questions. 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 exceptions 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 attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 19 ## Page 22 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. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Stevens be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge David J. Stevens Total Retain 72% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 15% Figure 10 100% 80% 74% 60% 53% 40% 19% 20% 12% 12% 9% 6% 6% 6% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Stevens All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 21 ## Page 24 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 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.30 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.06 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.28 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.39 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.39 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 13 Demeanor Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 34 Stevens Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 71% 6% 12% 6% 3% 3% 3.39 3.66 Treating participants with respect 70% 12% 9% 6% 3% -- 3.39 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 65% 9% 12% -- 9% 6% 3.28 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 59% 15% 12% 3% 12% -- 3.06 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.30 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 22 ## Page 25 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 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.33 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.32 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.61 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.22 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.31 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 14 Fairness Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Stevens Judges Giving participants an 64% 15% 9% 3% 6% 3% 3.31 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 67% 9% 6% 6% 9% 3% 3.22 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 52% 12% 3% 3% -- 30% 3.61 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 61% 15% 9% 6% 3% 6% 3.32 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.33 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 23 ## Page 26 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 13 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.28 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.35 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.34 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.10 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 15 Communications Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 32 Stevens Judges Making sure all participants understand the 59% 16% 3% 9% 9% 3% 3.10 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 66% 19% 6% 3% 6% -- 3.34 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 63% 16% 13% 3% 3% 3% 3.35 3.75 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.28 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 24 ## Page 27 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 14 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.46 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.34 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.53 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.38 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.37 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.65 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 16 Diligence Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 32 Stevens Judges Beginning court on time 69% 25% -- 3% -- 3% 3.65 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 66% 16% 13% 3% 3% -- 3.37 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 66% 16% 13% 3% 3% -- 3.38 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 75% 9% 13% -- 3% -- 3.53 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 66% 16% 9% 6% 3% -- 3.34 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.46 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 25 ## Page 28 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 15 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.23 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.19 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 3.15 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.28 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Stevens Table 17 Application of Law Judge David J. Stevens All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 31 Stevens Judges Giving reasons for rulings 66% 3% 9% 6% 6% 9% 3.28 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 53% 6% 13% -- 9% 19% 3.15 3.56 pressure Being able to identify and 69% 3% 9% 6% 9% 3% 3.19 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.23 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Stevens is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Stevens is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 81% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 10% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Stevens All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 27 ## Page 30 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Stevens are. If you feel Judge Stevens generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 82% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 8% 7% 3% 4% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Stevens All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge David J. Stevens 28

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

2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026