Daniel M. Taubman

Evaluation history

• 2012 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 71.4% yes

  1,357,602 yes · 543,359 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2012 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2012 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 2009 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Daniel Marc Taubman BE RETAINED. Judge Taubman was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 1992. He graduated from Cornell University in 1969. Before starting law school, he served as a volunteer in the Peace Corps, spending two years in rural Peru. He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1974, then served as a law clerk to a federal district court judge. Prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeals, Judge Taubman practiced law at legal services programs in Colorado Springs, New York, and Denver. He serves as chair of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee and is a member of the Bar Association’s Appellate Practice Subcommittee, which developed the Association’s appellate pro bono program. Judge Taubman has been actively involved in access to justice activities, both as a member of the Colorado Access to Justice Commission and the Chief Justice’s Commission on the Legal Profession. He also participates in programs designed to educate citizens regarding our legal system, including a program to educate elementary, middle, and high school students called We the People, the Citizen and the Constitution. Judge Taubman has been chosen for the 2012 Denver Bar Association’s Judicial Excellence Award. Attorneys who responded to survey questions indicate that Judge Taubman’s performance is comparable to the other Court of Appeals judges standing for retention. Many attorneys described Judge Taubman as intelligent and fair. Others commented favorably on the depth of his experience as a judge. The responses of district court and other appellate judges indicate that the performance of Judge Taubman is comparable to the other judges standing for retention. The comments of some judges reflect, and the Commission agrees, that Judge Taubman is dedicated and conscientious. The Commission reviewed a number of opinions written by Judge Taubman and found them in general to be detailed in addressing the issues presented, though on occasion somewhat unclear in explaining the basis of the court’s decision. The Commission observed that Judge Taubman was polite and engaged during oral argument. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 80% recommended to retain, 11% not to retain, and 9% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 88% recommended to retain and 12% not to retain. Of all judges surveyed, 87% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 9% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 96% recommended to retain and 5% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)
• 2004 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 72.5% yes

  1,114,544 yes · 423,178 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2004 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2004 Retention Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The State Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Daniel Marc Taubman BE RETAINED. Judge Taubman was admitted to the Bar of Colorado in 1975. He was a law clerk to the Honorable Charles E. Stewart, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for one year after graduating from Harvard Law School. Before he was appointed to the Colorado court of Appeals on November 11, 1992, Judge Taubman practiced law with legal services programs in Colorado Springs, Denver and New York. Judge Taubman has been actively involved in bar association and community activities. He has been a member of numerous committees of the Colorado, Denver and El Paso County Bar Associations including the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee. Judge Taubman has authored or co-authored a number of publications and articles dealing with civil practice and procedure and social security issues. He has devoted time to continuing legal education of the bar. Judge Taubman was raised in Brooklyn and Baldwin, New York. After graduating from Cornell University, and before starting law school, he served as a volunteer in the Peace Corps, spending two years in rural Peru engaged in the cultivation of potatoes. Recently, he has been active in primary and secondary school legal education through the program, "We the People, The Citizen and the Constitution." He also has participated on the boards of his synagogue and Foothills Academy. Judge Taubman strives to ensure that the opinions he writes have a high level of quality and demonstrate an understanding of the arguments and issues presented by the parties. Attorney questionnaires received by the Commission rate Judge Taubman the highest of all the judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals currently standing for retention. Of the responses received from attorneys, 95% voted for retention. Ninety-nine percent of the judges surveyed voted to retain.
• 1996 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 64.0% yes

  694,332 yes · 390,395 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 1996 Recommendation: Retain The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Daniel M. Taubman BE RETAINED. Judge Taubman was admitted to the Bar of Colorado in 1975.  He was a law clerk to the Honorable Charles E. Steward, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for one year.  Before he was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeal on November 11, 1992, Judge Taubman practices law in connection with legal services programs in Colorado Springs, Denver and New York. Judge Taubman has been actively involved in the bar association and community activities.  He has been a member of numerous committees of the Colorado, Denver and El Paso County Bar Associations.  He has served as the chair of several Colorado Bar Association committees and sub-committees. He has been a coach of the Odyssey of the Mind program at an elementary school since 1991.  Judge Taubman has authored or co-authored a number of publications and articles dealing with civil practice and procedure and social security issues.  He has devoted time to continuing legal education of the bar.  Judge Taubman is a member of the Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Public Education. Judge Taubman strives to ensure that the opinions he writes have a high level of quality and demonstrate an understanding of the arguments and issues presented by the parties.  His goal is to become more informed about the laws governing sentencing in criminal cases as well as other fields of substantive law with which the Court of Appeals deals less frequently.  Attorney questionnaires received by the State Commission rate Judge Taubman highly overall.  He received high marks for integrity, equal treatment of all persons, his knowledge of law and procedure and his attentiveness and patience during oral arguments.  Of the responses received from attorneys, 86.7% voted to retain Judge Taubman, 6.7% had no opinion and 6.7% voted not to retain him.

Surveys & reports

• 2012 cycle
  • 2011 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDaanniieell MM.. TTaauubbmmaann 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Court of Appeals ## Page 2 May 18th, 2011 The Honorable Daniel M. Taubman Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Taubman: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on a survey of attorneys who have had cases before a Court of Appeals panel of which you were a member or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the survey, and a breakout of results by year since 2005 or when you were sworn in, whichever is most recent. 2. The numerical results of the survey 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 questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The third section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 4. The final section provides copies of the questions that were used for the survey. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 ext 1 or by email at talmey@talmeyresearch.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Jane Howell, at 303-866-6465. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Daniel M. Taubman an overall average grade of 3.36. The average attorney grade for all Court of Appeals Judges was 3.31. The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through the first quarter of 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) The table below shows Judge Taubman’s overall average grades from attorneys for each of these years. Judge Taubman Average Attorney Grades by Year Judge Taubman All COA Judges Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Size Score Size 2005 3.95 3 3.61 163 2006 3.89 7 3.52 134 2007 3.62 17 3.43 357 2008 3.25 57 3.32 650 2009 3.42 74 3.28 995 2010 3.25 70 3.21 1,060 All Years 3.36 228 3.31 3,359 The results presented in this report are based on data from cases heard and closed from 2005 through 2010. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Judges who were appointed after 2005 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. 1 ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDaanniieell MM.. TTaauubbmmaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 288)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Daniel M. Taubman Sample Size = 228 Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA Taubman All COA Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 60% 15% 11% 5% 4% 6% 3.29 3.23 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 57% 20% 4% 3% 2% 14% 3.51 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 63% 10% 3% 4% 3% 18% 3.55 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 63% 15% 4% 2% 2% 14% 3.56 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 4% 2% 0% 1% 37% 3.78 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 53% 18% 6% 3% 3% 18% 3.40 3.41 Question 2 Average Grade 3.52 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 51% 25% 13% 6% 3% 4% 3.20 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 53% 20% 15% 8% 3% 3% 3.14 3.06 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 26% 11% 3% 2% 7% 3.36 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 53% 21% 6% 2% 4% 16% 3.38 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 51% 19% 14% 10% 7% 1% 2.99 2.92 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 50% 17% 12% 7% 5% 11% 3.12 3.16 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.20 3.14 Overall Average Grade: 3.36 3.31 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Daniel M. Taubman Sample Size = 228 Judge Taubman All COA Judges 6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Taubman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 66% 66% Somewhat recommend retain 23% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 9% Total Retain 89% 84% Total Not Retain 11% 16% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 60% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 21% 16% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 11% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 8% Total Retain 81% 75% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 11% Total Not Retain 11% 15% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.36 Overall average grade 3.31 3.52 Question 2 average grade 3.48 3.29 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.23 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.51 answer questions. 3.41 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.55 economic status. 3.52 3.56 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.51 3.78 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.79 3.40 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.41 3.20 Question 3 average grade 3.14 3.20 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.16 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.14 basis of the Court's decision. 3.06 3.36 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.30 3.38 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.26 2.99 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.92 3.12 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.16 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Taubman All COA Judges 4 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 8 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Taubman be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 66% Strongly recommend retain 66% 23% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Judge Taubman All COA Judges 6% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Retain 89% 84% 7% Total Not Retain 11% 16% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 59% 21% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Judge 9% Undecided or Don't Know Taubman All COA Judges 11% Total Retain 81% 75% Undecided or DK 9% 11% 6% Total Not Retain 11% 15% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Taubman All COA Judges 5 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey ## Page 9 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 10 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used for this survey. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of issued Supreme Court opinions provided by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a similar list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. These lists included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys‟ offices. All attorneys from the Supreme Court opinions list and the Court of Appeals opinions list were assigned to evaluate justices or judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a Supreme Court justice and a Court of Appeals judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the justice. 4. If at this point there were still several justices or judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the justice or judge with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still several justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, he or she was either randomly assigned to one of them, or assigned to the justice or judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes. Attorneys were mailed a questionnaire, and if they did not respond they were sent a reminder postcard followed by a second questionnaire and in some cases a second reminder postcard. Questionnaires were barcoded, and if an attorney mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Attorneys who did not complete the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey moved from being a paper survey mailed to potential respondents to an online survey. Moving the survey to online permitted asking individual attorneys to evaluate up to seven Supreme Court 7 ## Page 11 justices or COA judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 5 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to seven justices or judges, entailed slightly modifying the assignment rules: 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same justice or judge in a 24-month period. 2. Attorneys would only be asked to evaluate justices or judges who had written an opinion, concurrence or dissent in one of their cases. 3. The list of seven justices or judges could include both justices and judges. If an attorney had more than seven possible justices or judges he or she could potentially evaluate, Supreme Court justices were assigned to that attorney first. 4. If there were more than seven justices or judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the justices or judges with whom he or she had had the most cases with opinions issued during the sampling time frame. 5. If there were still more than seven justices or judges the attorney could evaluate, justices or judges were either randomly assigned to available list slots or were assigned to the justices or judges with the smallest sample sizes. Attorneys were first mailed a letter about the online survey to let them know that they would soon receive an email with a link to the survey. The Web address of the survey and a password were included in the letter if the attorney wanted to complete the survey immediately. A week after the first email was sent, a follow-up email was sent. Potential respondents who did not complete the survey after the second email were then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey then by phone, or to please complete it online. iii. In 2010 rule #2 above was changed so that an attorney would be asked to evaluate all seven justices if the case was heard by the Supreme Court, and the full three- judge panel if the case was heard by the Court of Appeals—not just the justices or judges who had written the opinion, concurrences or dissents. Because some of the survey questions refer specifically to the justice‟s or judge‟s legal writing, a question was added to the questionnaire asking “Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about Justice/Judge„s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them?” If the respondent answered “No” or “Don‟t Know” to this question he or she was not asked about the justice‟s or judge‟s writings. A copy of the list of the Attorney Regarding Appellate Judges questions is reprinted in the last section of this report. In addition to attorneys who had cases before either the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, COA staff attorneys were also surveyed in 2010. 8 ## Page 12 The results shown in the 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through March 2011 for those questions that have been consistently asked of attorneys during that time period. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice‟s or judge‟s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge‟s survey results in the first quarter of the seventh year, the oldest quarter of data in the pool is deleted. The current data for all judges only goes back as far as 2005—or the year the judge took the bench—therefore the rolling of the data only affects the county judge sample in the 2011 Interim reports. b. Questions: The survey questions asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F to assess the justice or judge's performance on twelve aspects of judicial performance (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s strengths and what they considered to be the justice‟s or judge‟s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the justice or judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the justice or judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been asked in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been fixed, but where the respondent entered a comment in all upper or all lower case, or without punctuation, the comment was not corrected. 9 ## Page 13 d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don‟t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge‟s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, averages were also computed for all COA judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all COA 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 Court of Appeals judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don‟t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge‟s strengths and weaknesses. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall response rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations (the number of judges an attorney chose to evaluate) divided by the number of possible evaluations (the number of judges the attorney could have evaluated) resulting in an overall response rate of 22.0% for Supreme Court justices and 17.4% for Court of Appeals. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed as the number of completed survey- evaluations for that judge divided by the number of possible evaluations that could have been completed for the judge. A table of the overall response rate and the response rate for Judge Taubman is shown below. Requested No Undeliv- Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response erable Evaluations Rate Judge Taubman 1028 786 13 228 22.5% All Court of Appeals 19,604 15,913 295 3,359 17.4% Judges All Appellate Judges 25,254 20,265 358 4,588 18.4% (SC and COA) 10 ## Page 14 Since 2009 attorneys have generally been asked to evaluate multiple judges per survey cycle, which affects the way cooperation rates are calculated. From 2005 to 2008 a total of 1,963 unique attorneys were asked to participate in the Judicial Performance mail surveys regarding appellate justices and judges. Nine hundred and thirty (930), or 47.4%, responded with a completed questionnaire. Correspondingly, from 2009 through the first quarter 2011 Talmey-Drake asked 6,681 unique attorneys to participate in the Judicial Performance online survey regarding appellate justices and judges, of which 22.5% (1500 attorneys) responded with one or more completed survey-evaluations of a justice or judge. On average each attorney responding to the online survey request evaluated 2.4 judges.1 1 Because Talmey-Drake deletes survey results associated with judges who are no longer on the bench, the counts used in this paragraph refer only to data collected regarding justices and judges who are active at this writing. 11 ## Page 15 Projectability Most surveys seen by the public are surveys that are intended to be projectable, that is the results from the sample of people surveyed can be used to estimate a percentage or value of the population sampled with a known probability of error. For example, a pre- election poll of 500 likely Colorado voters is used to estimate the percentage of voters who will vote for Candidate A versus Candidate B on election day, plus or minus some number of percentage points. The plus or minus amount is usually what is known as the 95%-confidence interval (the known probability of error), or what the media often refers to as the margin-of-error. Neither the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges nor the District Judges Regarding Appellate Judges is projectable with a known probability of error because the results are calculated from a self-selecting sample that is self-selecting based on the content and subject matter of the survey. In other words, the potential respondent knows the purpose and content of the survey, and based on that, decides whether to respond to the survey. While projectability within a known probability of error is a highly desirable attribute of a survey, it is often not feasible to achieve. Commercial market research often uses nonprojectable (and small) samples-the most well known of which are for focus groups. Moreover, the federal courts have long accepted, and do not expect, projectable samples for market confusion surveys used in trademark litigation. In other words, one can still use the results of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey to estimate how everyone who has observed a justice or judge in the courtroom would grade him or her, just not with a known probability of error. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is a valuable means, perhaps the only practical means, for the Judicial Performance Commissions to have a summary of structured interviews with a number of people who have courtroom familiarity with the judge or justice being evaluated, and who most often - albeit not always - are responding out of a desire to improve the performance of our state's judicial system. 12 ## Page 16 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 3359 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 56% 18% 9% 6% 5% 7% 3.23 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 53% 17% 6% 3% 3% 18% 3.41 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 9% 4% 3% 3% 24% 3.52 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 14% 6% 2% 2% 18% 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 51% 4% 2% 0% 1% 43% 3.79 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 50% 14% 7% 2% 2% 24% 3.41 Question 2 Average Grade 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 26% 11% 6% 3% 7% 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 24% 12% 8% 5% 7% 3.06 Courts decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 50% 26% 11% 3% 2% 8% 3.30 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 7% 4% 4% 22% 3.26 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 49% 19% 11% 10% 9% 2% 2.92 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 47% 19% 10% 4% 5% 15% 3.16 Question 3 Average Grade 3.14 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 13 ## Page 17 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Judges Sample Size = 3359 Average Grade 6. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 66% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 9% Total Retain 84% Total Not Retain 16% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Undecided or Don't Know 11% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 75% Undecided/Don't Know 11% Total Not Retain 15% 2011 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 19 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the justice, please check DK/NS for Don't Know/Not Sure. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [ Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 20 5. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1
  • 2012 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDaanniieell MM.. TTaauubbmmaann 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report Court of Appeals ## Page 2 March 26, 2012 The Honorable Daniel M. Taubman Colorado Court of Appeals 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Judge Taubman: 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 heard before a Court of Appeals panel of which you authored an opinion, concurrence, or dissent; 2) Court of Appeals staff attorneys; and 3) district judges and appellate judges. It’s important to note that Court of Appeals non-attorney employees were also asked to evaluate the judges (using the non-attorney survey), but the results are not included in this report due to the very low number of completed surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney survey (which includes Court of Appeals staff attorneys) and the district/appellate judge survey. 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 district judges and appellate judges in both tabular and graphical form, and any comments the judges might have made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the district/appellate judge questionnaire is in the final section of this report. 4. The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 5. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. ## Page 3 Hon. Daniel M. Taubman 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 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss 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. Attorneys assigned Judge Daniel M. Taubman an overall average grade of 3.34, and the district judges and appellate judges assigned Judge Taubman an overall average grade of 3.63, resulting in a combined average grade of 3.49. Judge Taubman Average Grades (All Years) District and Combined Attorneys Appellate Judges Overall Grade 3.49 3.34 3.63 Sample Size - 261 100 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected from 2005 through 2011. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. The table below shows Judge Taubman's overall average grades from attorneys for each year in which survey results are available, compared to the overall average grades for all Court of Appeals judges standing for retention in 2012. Judge Taubman Average Attorney Grades by Year All COA Judge Taubman Retention Judges Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Size Score Size 2005 3.95 3 3.75 20 2006 3.89 7 3.67 27 2007 3.62 17 3.46 90 2008 3.25 57 3.34 178 2009 3.42 74 3.32 314 2010 3.25 70 3.18 332 2011 3.18 33 3.32 194 All Years 3.34 261 3.31 1155 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDaanniieell MM.. TTaauubbmmaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 226611)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Daniel M. Taubman All Court of Appeals Sample Size = 261 Judge Retention A B C D Fail DK/NA Taubman Judges Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 57% 17% 11% 5% 4% 5% 3.24 3.20 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 57% 21% 3% 3% 2% 13% 3.51 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 64% 10% 3% 3% 3% 18% 3.55 3.51 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.56 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 56% 3% 2% 0% 1% 37% 3.78 3.81 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 54% 18% 6% 3% 3% 17% 3.41 3.43 Question 2 Average Grade 3.51 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 47% 28% 13% 5% 3% 4% 3.16 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 50% 22% 15% 7% 4% 3% 3.11 3.06 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 52% 27% 10% 3% 1% 7% 3.35 3.39 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 51% 22% 6% 2% 4% 15% 3.34 3.24 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 48% 20% 15% 9% 7% 0% 2.95 2.91 facts. 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 47% 18% 12% 7% 5% 12% 3.08 3.11 decided. Question 3 Average Grade 3.17 3.15 Overall Average Grade: 3.34 3.31 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 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Daniel M. Taubman All Court of Appeals Sample Size = 261 Judge Retention Taubman Judges 6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Taubman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 64% 65% Somewhat recommend retain 24% 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 8% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 8% Total Retain 88% 83% Total Not Retain 12% 16% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 58% 59% Somewhat recommend retain 22% 17% Undecided or Don't Know 9% 10% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% 7% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 7% Total Retain 80% 76% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 10% Total Not Retain 11% 14% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.34 Overall average grade 3.31 3.51 Question 2 average grade 3.48 3.24 2a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 3.20 2b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and 3.51 answer questions. 3.44 2c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 3.55 economic status. 3.51 3.56 2d. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.51 3.78 2e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.81 3.41 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.43 3.17 Question 3 average grade 3.15 3.16 3a. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.16 3b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.11 basis of the Court's decision. 3.06 3.35 3c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.39 3.34 3d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.24 2.95 3e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 2.91 3.08 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.11 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Taubman All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 5 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Q6. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Taubman be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 64% Strongly recommend retain 65% 24% Somewhat recommend retain Excluding Und/DK Respondents 18% All COA Judge Retention 6% Taubman Judges Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 88% 83% Total Not Retain 12% 16% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 58% Strongly recommend retain 59% 22% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Including Und/DK Respondents All COA 9% Judge Retention Undecided or Don't Know 10% Taubman Judges Total Retain 80% 76% Undecided or DK 9% 10% 6% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 11% 14% 7% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Taubman All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 6 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff DDiissttrriicctt aanndd AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee DDaanniieell MM.. TTaauubbmmaann ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 110)) ## Page 11 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Judge Daniel M. Taubman All Court of Sample Size = 100 Appeals Judge Retention A B C D Fail DK/NA Taubman Judges 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 56% 18% 6% 1% 0% 19% 3.59 3.57 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 51% 29% 7% 1% 0% 11% 3.47 3.49 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 51% 27% 9% 1% 0% 11% 3.45 3.48 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 45% 15% 6% 0% 0% 34% 3.59 3.61 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 55% 19% 3% 0% 0% 23% 3.68 3.68 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and 60% 19% 4% 3% 0% 14% 3.58 3.54 facts. 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be 50% 25% 3% 3% 0% 19% 3.50 3.55 decided. 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 69% 2% 1% 0% 1% 27% 3.89 3.89 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 51% 2% 0% 1% 0% 46% 3.90 3.89 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 3.63 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 8 ## Page 12 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Percentage Judge Daniel M. Taubman Sample Size = 100 All Court of Appeals Judge Retention Taubman Judges 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 85% 83% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 14% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% 1% Total Retain 96% 97% Total Not Retain 5% 3% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 77% 67% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 11% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% 20% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% 1% Total Retain 87% 78% Undecided/Don't Know 9% 20% Total Not Retain 4% 3% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Average Grades 3.63 Overall average of 1 through 9 3.63 3.59 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 3.57 3.47 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 3.49 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 3.45 Court's decision. 3.48 3.59 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.61 3.68 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.68 3.58 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 3.54 3.50 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 3.55 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.89 status. 3.89 3.90 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.89 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Judge Taubman All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 10 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 14 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges Q10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. Excluding Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 85% Strongly recommend retain 83% 11% Somewhat recommend retain Excluding Und/DK Respondents 14% All COA Judge Retention 4% Somewhat recommend not retain Taubman Judges 2% Total Retain 96% 97% Total Not Retain 5% 3% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided/Don't Know Respondents 77% Strongly recommend retain 67% 10% Somewhat recommend retain 11% Including Und/DK Respondents All COA 9% Judge Retention Undecided or Don't Know 20% Taubman Judges Total Retain 87% 78% 3% Undecided or DK 9% 20% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 4% 3% 2% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Judge Taubman All Court of Appeals Retention Judges 11 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on the survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges and the survey of District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges. Below is a description of the methodologies used for these two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges sample comes from a list of Court of Appeals opinions provided by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. The list included the names of the attorneys associated with the cases and the names of the judges who authored opinions, concurrences or dissents for those cases. Also included in the attorney population are the Court of Appeals staff attorneys. In 2011, the following changes were made to the Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 and eight years for a COA judge. To use a COA judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for eight years. After eight years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool will be deleted. 13 ## Page 17 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated justices and judges on 12 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 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 State 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. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Appellate 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 Court of Appeals retention judges and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all Court of Appeals 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 Court of Appeals retention judges. The 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 Appellate Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. 14 ## Page 18 e. Cooperation Rate: From 2005 through 2011, the overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations, resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 23.9% for Judge Taubman and 18.5% for all Court of Appeals retention judges. Looking at only the 2011 results, the cooperation rate for Judge Taubman is 44.0% and the cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals retention judges is 38.6%. The table below shows the overall cooperation rate for all Court of Appeals judges standing for retention in 2012 and the cooperation rate for Judge Taubman. These cooperation rates are based on data collected from 2005 to 2011. Undeliv- Requested No erable/Not Completed Cooperation Evaluations Response Applicable Evaluations Rate Judge Taubman 1144 828 54 261 23.9% All Court of Appeals 6625 5084 378 1155 18.5% Retention Judges II District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges a. Sample: One-hundred seventy-three (173) district judges and 28 appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the appellate judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of nine A through F questions, plus the retention recommendation question (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to 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 district judge and appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each appellate judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the appellate judge and the State Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the appellate judge and the 15 ## Page 19 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. d. Analysis: The District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the nine questions, including “don’t know” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for each question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all Court of Appeals judges eligible to stand for retention in 2012 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for the questions regarding all Court of Appeals retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall 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 Court of Appeals retention judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the District Judges and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges section lists the comments district and appellate judges wrote about the report-judge. e. Cooperation Rate: Two hundred and one questionnaires were mailed (173 district judges and 28 appellate judges) and 104 were returned, though not all appellate judges were evaluated in every returned questionnaire. 16 ## Page 20 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 1155 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade Question 2: 2a.Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. 55% 20% 9% 6% 5% 6% 3.20 2b.Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer 54% 19% 6% 3% 2% 16% 3.44 questions. 2c.Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 10% 3% 3% 3% 23% 3.51 economic status. 2d.Being courteous toward attorneys. 58% 16% 5% 2% 2% 16% 3.51 2e.Not engaging in ex parte communications. 53% 4% 1% 0% 1% 41% 3.81 2f. Being prepared for oral argument. 52% 16% 7% 2% 2% 21% 3.43 Question 2 Average Grade 3.48 Question 3: 3a.Writing opinions that are clear. 48% 27% 12% 4% 4% 5% 3.16 3b.Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 47% 24% 13% 7% 5% 4% 3.06 Court's decision. 3c.Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 54% 26% 10% 2% 1% 7% 3.39 3d.Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 48% 18% 8% 4% 4% 17% 3.24 3e.Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 48% 20% 13% 9% 9% 2% 2.91 3f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 20% 10% 5% 6% 13% 3.11 Question 3 Average Grade 3.15 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 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 17 ## Page 21 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 1155 Average Grade 6. 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 65% Somewhat recommend retain 18% Somewhat recommend not retain 8% Strongly recommend not retain 8% Total Retain 83% Total Not Retain 16% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain 59% Somewhat recommend retain 17% Undecided or Don't Know 10% Somewhat recommend not retain 7% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 76% Undecided/Don't Know 10% Total Not Retain 14% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 104 Average A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. 47% 17% 5% 1% 0% 30% 3.57 2. Writing opinions that are clear. 45% 22% 6% 1% 0% 26% 3.49 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the 46% 19% 8% 1% 0% 26% 3.48 Court's decision. 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 41% 14% 4% 0% 0% 41% 3.61 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 47% 16% 2% 0% 0% 35% 3.68 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. 49% 15% 7% 1% 1% 28% 3.54 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 46% 18% 3% 1% 1% 31% 3.55 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or 58% 3% 1% 1% 0% 37% 3.89 economic status. 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 46% 2% 0% 1% 0% 51% 3.89 Overall Average Grade: 3.63 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 19 ## Page 23 Survey of District and Appellate Judges Regarding Appellate Judges All Court of Appeals Retention Judges Sample Size = 104 Average Grade 10. Recommend retain/not retain. Percentages excluding undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 83% Somewhat recommend retain in office 14% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% Total Retain 97% Total Not Retain 3% Percentages including undecided/don't know responses. Strongly recommend retain in office 67% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 20% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 1% Total Retain 78% Undecided/Don't Know 20% Total Not Retain 3% 2012 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 25 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Appellate Judges Survey Questions 1. [This question asked for each judge evaluated.] Which of the following types of cases have you appealed to the [Court of Appeals/Supreme Court] in which [ Judge/Justice Last Name] authored the decision, concurred or dissented? (Please check all that apply.) Civil ....................................................................................................... 1 Criminal ................................................................................................ 2 Domestic .............................................................................................. 3 Juvenile ................................................................................................. 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade [ Judge/Justice Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge/justice, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. a. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case. b. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. c. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. d. Being courteous toward attorneys. e. Not engaging in ex parte communications. f. Being prepared for oral argument. Would you say you are sufficiently knowledgeable about [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s legal writings to have formed an opinion about them? Yes (Ask Q3a to Q3f) No (Skip to Q4) Don't know (Skip to Q4) 3. Please evaluate Justice Roy Bean on the following topics. a. Writing opinions that are clear. b. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's decision. c. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. d. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. e. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts. f. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided. 4. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s strengths? __________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ## Page 26 5. What would you say are [Judge/Justice Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 6. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that [Judge/Justice Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend the judge be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend the judge be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend the judge not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend the judge not be retained in office . 1 ## Page 27 S1 Please answer the enclosed questions about the one Supreme Court Justice and the six Court of Appeals Judges who are eligible to stand for retention in November 2012. For questions 1 through 9 please grade each of the judges using a grade scale where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail. If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge on the task, or for some reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please circle the number that indicates “no grade.” Thank you. BAR CODE GOES HERE Page 12 ## Page 28 S2 1. Being fair and impartial toward each side in a case. No A B C D F Grade Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 2. Writing opinions that are clear. No A B C D F Grade Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Page 2 Page 11 ## Page 29 S3 F. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the space below. If you 3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the would like to make more comments than space allows, feel Court’s decision. free to attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ G. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge John R. Webb in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. attach a sheet with additional comments. No _ A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Thank you. Page 10 Page 3 ## Page 30 S4 5. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. D. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Dennis A. Graham in the space below. If you would like to No make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a A B C D F Grade sheet with additional comments. Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ 6. Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and E. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge facts. Gale T. Miller in the space below. If you would like to make No more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet A B C D F Grade with additional comments. Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ _ Page 4 Page 9 ## Page 31 S5 B. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be Laurie A. Booras in the space below. If you would like to decided. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ C. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or James S. Casebolt in the space below. If you would like to economic status. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Laurie A. Booras. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ _ Page 8 Page 5 ## Page 32 S6 9. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 10. [Continued] No Judge Judge Judge A B C D F Grade Miller Taubman Webb Justice Nathan B. Coats . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 5 Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 4 Judge Laurie A. Booras . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge James S. Casebolt . 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation . 3 3 3 Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 2 Judge Gale T. Miller . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 1 Judge Daniel M. Taubman . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb . 4 3 2 1 0 6 10. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. A. Please write comments you would like to make about Justice Nathan B. Coats in the space below. If you would like to Justice Judge make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a Coats Booras sheet with additional comments. Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 _ Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 _ Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 _ _ _ Judge Judge _ Casebolt Graham Strongly recommend to retain . 5 5 _ Somewhat recommend to retain . 4 4 _ Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 3 Somewhat recommend not retain . 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain . 1 1 Page 6 Page 7
• 2004 cycle
  • 2004 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE 2004 Judicial Performance Survey TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee DDaanniieell MM.. TTaauubbmmaann ## Page 2 March 22, 2004 The Honorable Daniel M. Taubman Judge, Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado State Judicial Bldg. 2 East 14th Ave. Denver, Co. 80203 Dear Judge Taubman: Every two years the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission conducts a survey of attorneys who have had cases with opinions authored or co-authored by those appellate court judges who face a retention vote in the next general election, and a second survey concerning these judges is conducted among all of the State’s trial judges. This report contains the results of these two surveys. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into four main sections: · Attorney Results & Comments: This section contains graphs displaying the average grade you received overall (the combined average from questions 2a through 2l) Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of responses to each question. Attorney respondents were also asked to comment about your performance. These comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. · Survey of Trial Judges Results & Comments: Similar to the Attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1 through 14 on the Survey of Judges questionnaire), the percentage distribution of responses by the trail judges to each substantive question in the survey. The trial judges were also asked to comment about your performance. Again, these comments have been transcribed, and in some instances redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is also at the back of this report. · Methodology: The fourth section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. · Questionnaires: And the final section provides copies of the questionnaires that were used. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300, 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: 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Appeallate Survey Average Grades: Questions 2a through 2l and Overall Average 3.4 Overall average of 2a through 2l 3.3 3.3 2a. Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case. 3.3 3.3 2b. Writing opinions that are well written and understandable. 3.3 3.4 2c. Managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay. 3.3 3.4 2d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.3 3.5 2e. Having knowledge of the rules of evidence and proceedure. 3.3 3.2 2f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.3 3.1 2g. Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts. 2.9 3.5 2h. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.4 3.4 2i. Asking thoughtful questions in oral argument. 3.3 2j. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.6 status. 3.6 3.7 2k. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.6 3.9 2l. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Judge Taubman Average Grade All Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Taubman Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 4 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Appeallate Survey Retention Recommendation 80% 75% 69% 70% 68% 61% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 18% 16% 15% 12% 10% 9% 9% 10% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n U n d e ci d e d S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o o S S Including Undecided Excluding Undecided Judge Taubman All Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Taubman Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 5 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2a. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 57% 55% B 22% 21% C 15% 8% D 2% 7% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 2% 7% Average 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2b. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Writing opinions that are well written and understandable?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 51% 51% B 34% 25% C 9% 12% D 1% 5% Fail 3% 1% No Grade 1% 6% Average 3.3 3.3 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 7 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2c. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 40% 34% B 30% 27% C 7% 8% D 2% Fail No Grade 21% 30% Average 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 8 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2d. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 49% 44% B 34% 32% C 10% 10% D 3% Fail No Grade 4% 11% Average 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 9 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2e. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 47% 42% B 26% 16% C 5% 10% D 2% 3% Fail 2% No Grade 21% 29% Average 3.5 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 10 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2f. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 40% 42% B 22% 14% C 7% 7% D 4% 4% Fail 3% 3% No Grade 22% 31% Average 3.2 3.3 Letter Grade B B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 11 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2g. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 48% 46% B 24% 19% C 19% 15% D 1% 11% Fail 6% 6% No Grade 1% 5% Average 3.1 2.9 Letter Grade B B- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 12 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2h. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Being prepared for oral argument?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 48% 44% B 21% 19% C 9% 8% D 2% Fail No Grade 22% 28% Average 3.5 3.4 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 13 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2i. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Asking thoughtful questions in oral argument?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 45% 39% B 21% 16% C 11% 10% D 2% 3% Fail 0% No Grade 21% 31% Average 3.4 3.3 Letter Grade B+ B Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 14 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2j. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 58% 49% B 6% 9% C 6% 3% D 1% 2% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 27% 36% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 15 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2k. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Being courteous toward attorneys?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 66% 54% B 13% 17% C 4% 5% D 1% Fail 0% No Grade 16% 23% Average 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 16 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 2l. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 51% 45% B 4% 3% C 2% D Fail No Grade 45% 50% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 17 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Attorney Survey 3. Do you recommend that Judge Taubman be retained in office or not be retained in office? All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman Strongly Recommend 75% 69% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 20% 16% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 2% 10% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office 3% 4% Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 18 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges Average Grades: Questions 1 through 14 and Overall Average 3.7 Overall average of 1 through 14 3.7 3.8 1. Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case. 3.8 3.7 2. Writing opinions that are well written and understandable. 3.6 3.6 3. Managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay. 3.6 3.6 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 3.6 3.7 5. Having knowledge of the rules of evidence and proceedure. 3.7 3.8 6. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 3.8 3.6 7. Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts. 3.6 3.8 8. Being prepared for oral argument. 3.8 3.9 9. Asking thoughtful questions in oral argument. 3.8 3.7 10. Willingness to undertake administrative responsibilities. 3.8 3.8 11. Being courteous toward attorneys. 3.8 3.9 12. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 3.9 3.8 13. Willingness to help other judges and justices. 3.8 14. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic 3.9 status. 3.8 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 Judge Taubman Average Grade All Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Taubman Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 19 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges Retention Recommendation 100% 90% 88% 86% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 12% 11% 10% 2% 1% 0% Str o n gl y n ot r et ai n m e w h at n ot r et ai n S o m e w h at r et ai n Str o n gl y r et ai n o S Judge Taubman All Court of Appeals Judges except Judge Taubman Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 20 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 1. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 57% 52% B 9% 11% C 3% 3% D Fail No Grade 31% 35% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 1 ## Page 21 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 2. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Writing opinions that are well written and understandable?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 59% 55% B 16% 18% C 4% 5% D Fail No Grade 20% 22% Average 3.7 3.6 Letter Grade A- B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 2 ## Page 22 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 3. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 35% 34% B 17% 15% C 2% 3% D Fail No Grade 47% 48% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 3 ## Page 23 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 4. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Issuing opinions in a timely manner?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 36% 36% B 19% 16% C 2% 3% D Fail No Grade 43% 45% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 4 ## Page 24 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 5. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 59% 56% B 15% 14% C 2% 3% D 0% Fail 1% 1% No Grade 23% 26% Average 3.7 3.7 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 5 ## Page 25 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 6. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Making decisions without regard to possible criticism?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 61% 58% B 10% 8% C 1% 2% D Fail No Grade 28% 31% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 6 ## Page 26 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 7. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 57% 53% B 19% 20% C 3% 3% D Fail No Grade 19% 24% Average 3.6 3.6 Letter Grade B+ B+ Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 7 ## Page 27 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 8. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Being prepared for oral argument?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 26% 25% B 3% 3% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 70% 71% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 8 ## Page 28 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 9. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Asking thoughtful questions in oral argument?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 19% 17% B 1% 0% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 80% 81% Average 3.9 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 9 ## Page 29 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 10. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Willingness to undertake administrative responsibilities?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 22% 23% B 6% 4% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 71% 72% Average 3.7 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 10 ## Page 30 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 11. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Being courteous toward attorneys?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 34% 31% B 6% 4% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 59% 64% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 11 ## Page 31 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 12. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Not engaging in ex parte communications?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 33% 32% B 2% 2% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 64% 65% Average 3.9 3.9 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 12 ## Page 32 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 13. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Willingness to help other judges and justices?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 33% 35% B 7% 6% C 1% 1% D Fail No Grade 59% 59% Average 3.8 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 13 ## Page 33 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges 14. How would you grade Judge Taubman on "Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status?" All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman A 55% 49% B 6% 6% C 1% 2% D Fail No Grade 39% 43% Average 3.9 3.8 Letter Grade A- A- Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 14 ## Page 34 Judge Daniel M. Taubman Survey of Judges R15e.t Do you recommend that Judge Taubman be retained in office or not be retained in office? All Court of Appeals Judge Judges except Taubman Judge Taubman Strongly Recommend 86% 88% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend 12% 11% Retain in office Somewhat Recommend Not 2% 1% Retain in office Strongly Recommend Not Retain in office Judicial Performance Survey 2004 Page 15 ## Page 35 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Sample: The Colorado Judicial Department provided Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc. with names and addresses of attorneys who, in the previous 12 months, had a case decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, of which the decision had been authored or co-authored by one of the six Court of Appeals judges up for a retention vote in 2004. Talmey-Drake Research was also provided with the list of the 265 Colorado judges and justices. Two surveys were conducted, one among attorneys who had opinions authored or co-authored by one of the six Court of Appeals judges facing a retention vote in 2004, and a second survey of all Colorado judges and justices. Questionnaire: Copies of the two questionnaires used are provided at the end of this report. Respondents were asked to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in a number of different areas. These grades 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 for each survey as well as the response rate for your surveys. Overall Response Rate Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Respondent Type Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Attorneys 1170 393 21 168 39.2% Judges 265 135 1 14 1 53.8% Response Rate for Judge Taubman Refused/ Nonre- Unde- Response Respondent Type Total Sent Completed sponse livered Other Rate Attorneys 220 68 6 36 37.0% Judges 265 135 1 14 1 53.8% A 4 Results: The results of the Survey are in two main sections: Attorney Respondents and Judge Respondents. Within each main section are three subsections: graphs 1 ## Page 36 displaying average grades for each section and question, the percentage distribution of grades, and respondent comments. Graphs: The graphs visually display the overall average numerical grades received for all grade questions, each section and each question compared to the combined averages for all the other Court of Appeals judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Percentage Distribution of Grades: This section shows the percentage of each grade received on each question plus the bias, sentencing and retention questions. An average grade point for each graded question is computed and shown in the results section. A letter grade is also assigned to each grade point according to the following scale. A = 4.00 B = 3.00 to 3.33 C = 2.00 to 2.33 D = 1.00 to 1.33 A— = 3.68 to 3.99 B— = 2.67 to 2.99 C— = 1.67 to 1.99 D— = 0.67 to 0.99 B+ = 3.34 to 3.66 C+ = 2.34 to 2.66 D+ = 1.34 to 1.66 Fail = 0.00 to 0.67 This section also includes a comparative column of results showing the results for that question for all other Court of Appeals judges for which 2004 surveys were conducted. Comments: Each respondent was encouraged to comment on the judge’s performance. This section contains these comments—again divided between results from attorneys and judges. 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. 2 ## Page 37 Commission on Judicial Performance 2004 Judicial Performance Court of Appeals Questionnaire Evaluation of Judge _ 1. Which of the following types of cases have you appealed in which Judge _ authored or co-authored the decision? (Please circle all that apply.) Civil. 1 Criminal. 2 Domestic. 3 Juvenile. 4 Other. 5 2. 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, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade Judge _, please circle the number indicating “Can’t Grade.” Can’t A B C D F Answer a. Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Writing opinions that are well written and understandable. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Managing cases efficiently and withy minimal delay. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 e. Having knowledge if the rules of evidence and procedure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 f. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. 4 3 2 1 0 9 g. Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 h. Being prepared for oral argument. 4 3 2 1 0 9 i. Asking thoughtful questions in oral argument. 4 3 2 1 0 9 j. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status. 4 3 2 1 0 9 k. Being courteous toward attorneys. 4 3 2 1 0 9 l. Not engaging in ex parte communications. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Continued On Other Side ## Page 38 3. Comments about Judge _ relating to any of your responses to the previous questions: _ _ _ _ 4. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge _ be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office. 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office. 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation. 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office. 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office. 1 4. And why do you think that way about retaining or not retaining Judge _? _ _ _ _ _ Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage paid enveloped provided, and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. ## Page 39 Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the space below. If you would like to make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Survey of Colorado Judges _ _ Please answer the enclosed questions about each of the six Court Please write comments you would like to make about Judge of Appeals judges who are up for a retention vote in November John R. Webb in the space below. If you would like to make 2004. For questions 1 through 14 please grade each of the more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet judges and justice using a grade scale where an “A” indicates you with additional comments. believe the judge or justice is doing excellent on that aspect of _ his or her job, a “D” indicates that you believe he or she is doing _ poorly on that aspect of the job and an “F” indicates that you believe the judge or justice is failing at that task. B’s and C’s _ indicate that you believe the judge or justice is performing _ between excellent and poor on the particular task. _ If, for a specific question, you feel that you do not have enough _ information to grade the judge or justice on the task, or for some _ reason feel that you cannot grade him or her on the item, please _ circle the number that indicates “no grade.” _ Thank you. _ Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed postage paid envelope. Thank you. ## Page 40 1. Being fair and impartial toward both sides of the case. Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Robert J. No Kapelke in the space below. If you would like to make more A B C D F Grade comments than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 comments. Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 2. Writing opinions that are well written and understandable. _ No _ A B C D F Grade Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 3. Managing cases efficiently and with minimal delay. No Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Arthur P. A B C D F Grade Roy in the space below. If you would like to make more comments Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 than space allows, feel free to attach a sheet with additional comments. Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner. _ No _ A B C D F Grade Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 ## Page 41 Please write comments you would like to make about Judge 5. Having knowledge of the rules of evidence and procedure. James S. Casebolt in the space below. If you would like to No make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a A B C D F Grade Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 sheet with additional comments. _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ 6. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism. _ No _ A B C D F Grade _ Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Please write comments you would like to make about Judge Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Dennis A. Graham in the space below. If you would like to 7. Making the correct decision based upon the law and facts. make more comments than space allows, feel free to attach a No sheet with additional comments. A B C D F Grade _ Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ _ 8. Being prepared for oral argument. _ No A B C D F Grade _ Judge James S. Casebolt. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Dennis A. Graham . 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Robert J. Kapelke. 4 3 2 1 0 6 _ Judge Arthur P. Roy. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman. 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb. 4 3 2 1 0 6 ## Page 42 9. Asking thoughtful questions in oral argument. 13. Willingness to help other judges and justices. No No A B C D F Grade A B C D F Grade Judge James S. Casebolt............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham ............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham ............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Robert J. Kapelke............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Robert J. Kapelke............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Arthur P. Roy.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Arthur P. Roy..................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman........... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman........... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 10. Willingness to undertake administrative responsibilities. 14. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or No economic status. A B C D F Grade No Judge James S. Casebolt............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 A B C D F Grade Judge Dennis A. Graham ............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge James S. Casebolt............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Robert J. Kapelke............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Dennis A. Graham ............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Arthur P. Roy.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Robert J. Kapelke............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman........... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Arthur P. Roy..................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge Daniel M. Taubman........... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Judge John R. Webb.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 11. Being courteous toward attorneys. No 15. Recommend to be retained/not retained in office. A B C D F Grade Judge Judge Judge Judge James S. Casebolt............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Casebolt Graham Kapelke Judge Dennis A. Graham ............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain ..... 5 5 5 Judge Robert J. Kapelke............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain... 4 4 4 Judge Arthur P. Roy.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge Daniel M. Taubman........... 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation........ 3 3 3 Judge John R. Webb.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain. 2 2 2 Strongly recommend not retain.... 1 1 1 12. Not engaging in ex parte communications. No Judge Judge Judge A B C D F Grade Roy Taubman Webb Judge James S. Casebolt............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend to retain...... 5 5 5 Judge Dennis A. Graham ............ 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend to retain... 4 4 4 Judge Robert J. Kapelke............... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Undecided or don’t know enough Judge Arthur P. Roy.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 to make recommendation........ 3 3 3 Judge Daniel M. Taubman........... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Somewhat recommend not retain. 2 2 2 Judge John R. Webb.................... 4 3 2 1 0 6 Strongly recommend not retain.... 1 1 1

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

• 2012 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2004 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 1996 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026