Todd L. Vriesman

Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin

Meets Standards2 cycles on record

Evaluation history

2022 retention cycle
Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin
Commission vote: 10 for · 0 against
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 68.7% yes
151,886 yes · 69,068 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2022 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2022 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Todd L. Vriesman MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Vriesman presides over a mixed docket of probate, civil, and criminal cases. He serves as the designated district court judge for all probate and Extreme Risk Protection Order cases in the First Judicial District and the designated district judge for Gilpin County. Judge Vriesman is widely praised as a critical asset for the First Judicial District for his deep knowledge of probate law and his highly efficient, fair, and careful administration of probate cases which often involve many unrepresented and emotional families experiencing the loss of a family member. Over the past five years, Judge Vriesman has worked to initiate and implement procedures to improve the probate docket such that he can apply a careful balance in such cases between different roles as auditor, advisor, and arbiter. In his other criminal and civil cases, Judge Vriesman is described as efficient with case management, well-prepared for dockets, motions, and trials, and prompt with rulings. Participants in his courtroom note that he is demanding and has high expectations of attorneys. Among other judges and judicial staff, Judge Vriesman is described as a very dedicated, knowledgeable, approachable, hard-working, collaborative, and valued member of the First Judicial District. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Vriesman, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, reviewed the 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report from attorneys and non-attorneys appearing before him, as well as received feedback from the Office of the State Public Defender and the First Judicial District Attorney's Office. Based on the Commission’s evaluation, Judge Vriesman demonstrated that he meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories under review: case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. Judge Vriesman was appointed to the bench in the First Judicial District on July 1, 2014. Before his appointment, Judge Vriesman practiced for more than 30 years as a partner of a national law firm, a co-founder of a Denver law firm, and another firm dedicated to civil litigation. While in private practice, he worked as a trial lawyer focused on civil matters; he also served as court- appointed criminal defense counsel in a three-month trial in federal court. Judge Vriesman received his Juris Doctor from the University of Denver in 1981 and served as a judicial law clerk for a Colorado federal district judge. Outside of the courtroom, Judge Vriesman has volunteered time participating in a statewide study group for proposed statutory revisions to the Colorado Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act and volunteered time participating in a judge review group for drafts of proposed probate legislation. He also presents at many continuing legal education conferences on probate law. Primer Distrito Judicial Juez del Tribunal de Distrito Honorable Todd L. Vriesman La Comisión sobre Desempeño Judicial del Primer Distrito Judicial acuerda por unanimidad, con un voto de 10-0, que el Juez Todd L. Vriesman CUMPLE CON LAS NORMAS DE DESEMPEÑO. Las normas de desempeño judicial de las leyes de Colorado son integridad, conocimiento de la ley, habilidades de comunicación, temperamento judicial, desempeño administrativo y servicio a la profesión jurídica y al público. El Juez Vriesman supervisa un expediente mixto, en el que se incluyen casos penales, civiles y de libertad condicional. Se desempeña como el juez de distrito designado para todos los casos de sucesión y órdenes de protección de riesgo extremo en el Primer Distrito Judicial, y como el juez de distrito designado para el condado de Gilpin. El Juez Vriesman es ampliamente elogiado como un actor fundamental para el Primer Distrito Judicial por su profundo conocimiento de la ley de sucesión y su administración altamente eficiente, justa y cuidadosa de los casos de sucesión, que a menudo involucran a muchas familias no representadas y sensibles, que sufren la pérdida de un miembro de la familia. En los últimos cinco años, el Juez Vriesman ha trabajado para iniciar e implementar procedimientos que mejoren el expediente testamentario, de manera que pueda regir un cuidadoso equilibrio en estos casos entre los diferentes roles de auditor, asesor y árbitro. En sus otros casos penales y civiles, se describe al Juez Vriesman como eficiente en la gestión de casos, bien preparado para los expedientes, las mociones y los juicios, y expeditivo en las decisiones. Los participantes de su tribunal señalan que es exigente y tiene grandes expectativas respecto de los abogados. Entre otros jueces y personal judicial, se habla del Juez Vriesman como un miembro muy dedicado, instruido, accesible, trabajador, colaborador y valorado del Primer Distrito Judicial. La Comisión efectuó una entrevista personal con el Juez Vriesman, revisó opiniones de su autoría, lo observó en el tribunal, analizó el informe de la encuesta de desempeño judicial de 2022 de los abogados y no abogados que comparecen ante él, y también recibió comentarios de la Defensoría Pública del estado y de la Fiscalía del Primer Distrito Judicial. Conforme a la evaluación de la Comisión, el Juez Vriesman demostró que cumple con las normas de desempeño o las excede en todas las categorías objeto de revisión: gestión de casos, aplicación y conocimiento de la ley, comunicaciones, diligencia, actitud y ecuanimidad. El Juez Vriesman fue nombrado como juez del Primer Distrito Judicial el 1 de julio de 2014. Antes de su nombramiento, el Juez Vriesman ejerció durante más de 30 años como socio de un bufete de abogados nacional, y fue cofundador de un bufete de Denver y de otro bufete dedicado a los litigios civiles. Mientras ejercía en el ámbito privado, trabajó como abogado litigante centrado en asuntos civiles. También, actuó como abogado defensor penal, designado por el tribunal, en un juicio de tres meses en un tribunal federal. El Juez Vriesman obtuvo un doctorado en Jurisprudencia de la Universidad de Denver en 1981 y fue secretario judicial de un juez federal de distrito en Colorado. Fuera del tribunal, el Juez Vriesman ha participado voluntariamente en un grupo de estudio a nivel estatal para las revisiones estatutarias propuestas a la Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (Ley de Tutela y Procedimientos de Protección Uniformes) de Colorado y ha participado voluntariamente en un grupo de revisión de jueces para los borradores de la legislación testamentaria propuesta. También, es ponente en muchas conferencias de formación jurídica continua sobre derecho sucesorio.
2016 retention cycle
Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin
Meets Standards
VotersRetained· 65.6% yes
168,107 yes · 88,191 no50% needed to retain
Retention Year: 2016 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends retention of Judge Todd L. Vriesman. Judge Vriesman earned an undergraduate degree from Carthage College and received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Denver College of Law in 1981. After law school, he clerked for Federal District Judge Alfred A. Arraj. He practiced for several years at a boutique law firm he founded, and then worked at Kirkland and Ellis before becoming a partner at Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio and Dusbabek. His civil practice included work in insurance coverage and commercial, real estate, banking, construction, and employment litigation. Judge Vriesman was appointed to the bench in the First Judicial District in July, 2014. He currently has a mixed docket of civil, domestic relations, and criminal cases. He is active in the community and serves on the Advisory Board of the Jefferson County Mediation Services. Commission members conducted a personal interview with Judge Vriesman, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared in his courtroom. Among the survey questions was, “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Vriesman be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of those who completed the survey, 51% of attorneys recommended retaining him in office, and 89% of non-attorneys recommended retention. As one of the newest judges in the First Judicial District, and with a professional background almost wholly in civil law, Judge Vriesman has worked earnestly to master criminal law and procedure, and to constantly improve as a judge. While he scored lower than average with attorneys in a number of categories the surveys measured, including case management, application and knowledge of the law, and demeanor, he scored higher than average with non-attorneys. He told the Commission that regarding criminal cases, he begins his case analysis with a focus on the victim. When he does not know something, he is not afraid to ask and consult with fellow judges. Both in the surveys and in the interview, Judge Vriesman came across as conscientious, professional, thorough and well-prepared, patient, and hard-working.

Surveys & reports

2022 cycle
- 2021 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Todd L. Vriesman 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor .10 Diligence .11 Fairness .13 Survey of Appellate Judges .14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges.18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Vriesman, 66 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 66 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Vriesman All District Judges Judge Vriesman All District Judges Overall Grade 3.6 3.4 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 89% 85% 84% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 12% 11% 8% 6% 3% 3% 3% 0% Judge Vriesman All District Judges Judge Vriesman All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Vriesman Vriesman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 84% 82% 89% 85% standards No, does not meet 3% 12% 8% 11% performance standards No opinion 13% 6% 3% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 Case Management 3.4 3.5 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.4 3.7 Communications 3.6 3.7 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 3.6 Fairness 3.5 Judge Vriesman All District Judges Judge All District Vriesman Judges Case 3.5 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.5 3.4 Law Communications 3.7 3.6 Diligence 3.7 3.4 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 3.6 3.5 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 39 36% 79% 31 Non- 49 10% 71% 35 Attorneys In addition to the responses above, Judge Vriesman received 2 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.5 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 22 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.6 3.4 3.6 N/A 31 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 26 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 30 cases 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.5 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5 64 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 28 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.2 3.1 3.2 N/A 5 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.6 3.3 3.6 N/A 31 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.4 3.2 3.4 N/A 28 rules Giving reasons for rulings 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 34 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 3.8 3.5 N/A 3.8 30 pressure 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Overall 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 66 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.5 3.3 3.5 N/A 25 thorough and well reasoned Using language that everyone 3.7 3.7 N/A 3.7 37 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 37 being said 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.5 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.6 67 Treating participants with respect 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.5 67 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 66 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 36 appear before him/her 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Score 3.7 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.6 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.7 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.5 3.2 3.5 N/A 29 rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 64 for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.7 3.4 3.7 N/A 21 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 35 Maintaining appropriate control 3.8 3.7 N/A 3.8 37 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.8 3.6 N/A 3.8 33 cases Managing court proceedings so 3.7 3.5 N/A 3.7 36 that there is little wasted time 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 11 ## Page 12 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Vriesman Score 3.6 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Vriesman Attorneys Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.6 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Vriesman Vriesman Vriesman Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 36 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 34 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.7 3.6 N/A 3.7 23 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.6 3.5 N/A 3.6 34 case 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Vriesman 7 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Vriesman enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Vriesman Score 3.1 Judge Vriesman District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.1 3.6 7 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Vriesman, 66 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 66 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. Non-attorneys During the 2018 administration, a total of 143,430 survey invitations were sent to non-attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. In total 4,862 surveys were completed with an additional 1,925 responses where the individual indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 6% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 72%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. Data collection among non-attorneys also featured four quarterly cycles with each cycle consisting of a mailed invitation letter with instructions to access the survey online followed by a mailed survey booklet with a prepaid 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 15 ## Page 16 return envelope. To meet tight reporting deadlines, the order was switched for the 4th quarter administration and the survey booklet was sent first followed by the letter. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on November 5th, 2018 and reminders sent on November 13th and 26th. In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 21st, 2019. During this period 87 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 21stor for judges not receiving an interim evaluation in 2019 were held over for the 2020 evaluation cycle. Table 1: Non-Attorney Data Collection Dates Cycle Invitation Letter Survey Booklet Q1 5/18/18 6/20/18 Q2 8/2/18 9/7/18 Q3 11/9/18 12/19/18 Q4 1/31/19 1/23/19 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2017 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 7 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Vriesman to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 29th, 2019. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 107 39 0 31 79% Law Enforcement 76 11 4 3 27% Litigant 369 5 86 3 60% Juror 89 25 11 22 88% Others 58 8 0 7 88% Total Non-Attorneys 592 49 101 35 71% Total Respondents 699 88 101 66 75% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 19
- 2022 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Overall score
  3.3
  judge rating, 0–4 scale
  Attorneys recommend
  83%
  225 respondents
  Non-attorneys recommend
  76%
  respondent count not on record
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Todd L. Vriesman 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 511 Congress Street, Suite 801 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 8 Case Management . 8 Application and Knowledge of Law . 9 Communications . 10 Demeanor . 11 Diligence . 12 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Vriesman, 132 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 132 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.3 3 2 1 0 Judge Vriesman All District Judges Judge Vriesman All District Judges Overall Grade 3.3 3.4 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 83% 83% 79% 76% 80% 60% 40% 24% 20% 15% 16% 12% 3% 4% 5% 0% Judge Vriesman All District Judges Judge Vriesman All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Vriesman Vriesman Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 83% 83% 76% 79% standards No, does not meet 15% 12% 24% 16% performance standards No opinion 3% 4% 0% 5% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Case Management 3.4 3.2 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.4 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.3 Demeanor 3.4 3.2 Fairness 3.3 Judge Vriesman All District Judges Judge All District Vriesman Judges Case Management 3.3 3.4 Application and Knowledge 3.2 3.3 of Law Communications 3.4 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.3 3.4 Fairness 3.2 3.3 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 225 25% 49% 111 Non- 88 - - 21 Attorneys *Some non-attorney evaluations are self-selected, making calculating a response rate impossible. The non-attorney group includes staff, jurors, litigants, and witnesses including law enforcement officers. It also includes responses provided through the open Citizen feedback survey. Judge Vriesman received 1 response(s) via the Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non- attorney results wherever applicable. However, as self-selected evaluations they cannot be included in response rates. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 6 ## Page 7 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 7 ## Page 8 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.2 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 96 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 121 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.0 101 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.1 115 cases 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 8 ## Page 9 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Overall 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 2.8 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and 3.3 3.3 3.4 2.8 121 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.3 3.2 3.3 N/A 103 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 78 similar Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 102 rules Giving reasons for rulings 2.8 3.2 N/A 2.8 15 Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 2.8 3.3 N/A 2.8 17 outside pressure 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 9 ## Page 10 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.4 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 114 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 101 thorough and well-reasoned Using language that everyone 3.4 3.6 N/A 3.4 17 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 3.6 3.6 N/A 3.6 17 being said 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 10 ## Page 11 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.1 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.2 120 Treating participants with respect 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 120 Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 2.8 3.2 N/A 2.8 17 appear before him/her 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 11 ## Page 12 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Vriesman Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.3 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.3 Judge Judge District Judge Vriesman Number of Vriesman Judges Vriesman Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.2 3.2 N/A 103 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 90 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 100 for cases Beginning court on time. 3.4 3.5 N/A 3.4 17 Maintaining appropriate control 3.5 3.5 N/A 3.5 17 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 3.3 3.4 N/A 3.3 16 cases Being prepared for cases. 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 16 Managing court proceedings so 3.1 3.4 N/A 3.1 17 that there is little wasted time 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Vriesman Score 3.2 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Vriesman Attorneys 3.2 Judge Vriesman Non-Attorneys 3.0 Judge Judge Judge District Number of Vriesman Vriesman Vriesman Non- Judges Overall Responses Score Attorneys Attorneys Giving participants an 2.9 3.3 N/A 2.9 17 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 2.8 3.2 N/A 2.8 17 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 3.3 3.3 N/A 3.3 14 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.1 3.3 N/A 3.1 16 case Conducting their courtroom in a neutral 3.2 3.3 3.2 2.9 116 manner. Being fair and impartial 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 103 to both sides. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Vriesman 12 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Vriesman enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Vriesman Score 3.8 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Vriesman District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.8 3.7 12 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Vriesman, 132 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 132 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the administration, a total of 89,078 survey invitations were sent to 10,845 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving reports in 2022. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 8.2 judges. In total 9,005 surveys were completed with an additional 9,895 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 10% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 21%. Non-attorneys The 2022 administration expanded on contacting non-attorneys electronically. More non-attorney email addresses became available due to administrative changes in the courts. In total 86,758 non-attorneys were invited via email. Some non-attorney groups could self-select which judges they would like to evaluate. Court staff members were emailed a link that allowed them to self-select the judges wished to evaluate in their county or district. Jurors, in addition to email, could similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. These methods allowed us to gather more data than previous cycles, however the inclusion of self-selected evaluations makes it impossible to calculate a response rate. In total 5,463 surveys were completed with an additional 2,466 responses where the respondent indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable providing an evaluation. b. Methodology The 2022 attorney survey was conducted in 4 cycles online beginning on June 15th, 2021. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges in each quarter were sent a sent a series of email invitations. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the first quarter of 2021 on June 15th, 2021. Reminders were sent on June 30th and July 9th, 2021. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2021 with email invitations sent on August 23rd, 2021 and reminders was sent on September 2nd, 2021 and September 14th, 2021. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the third quarter of 2021 on November 9th, 2021. Reminders sent on November 18th and December 2nd, 2021. The final data collection took place in January 2022. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2021 on January 19th, 2022. Reminders were sent on January 28th, February 2nd and 12th, 2022. Invitations were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on January 1st, 2021 and ran through the response deadline of February 28th, 2022. Survey invitations were sent via email to most non-attorneys in quarterly batches mirroring the process used for attorneys. Court staff members were also invited via email but using a different process. To help reduce administrative burden, the way that court staff were invited was changed for this cycle. Rather than be invited to evaluate specific judges, staff are now brought to a screen showing list of all judges in their district our county and allowed to choose which to evaluate. Jurors, in addition to email, were allowed to similarly self-select via publicly posted links. The general public was also allowed to self-select via a separate public link. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 28th, 2022. During this period 938 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 28th or for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2022 were held over for the 2023 evaluation cycle. Details on the responses from each group are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Non-attorney email 90,845 6,068 7% Court Staff Email Invite 3,471 1,861 N/A (Self-select) Citizen Feedback Unknown 220 N/A Juror Survey Unknown 938 N/A c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence and fairness. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2021 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 23 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 16 ## Page 17 an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 39 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 12 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Vriesman to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2022. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Rate Attorney 911 225 111 49% Staff - 2 2 - Others 1175 85 18 21% Juror - 0 0 - Citizen Feedback - 1 1 Total Non-Attorneys - 88 21 - Total Respondents - 313 132 - *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2022 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 19
2016 cycle
- 2016 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
  Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse
  ## Page 1 The Honorable Todd L. Vriesman 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 206 Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Appellate Judges.15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Results .17 Survey of Non Attorneys .18 Methodology and How to Read Results .18 Retention .21 Demeanor .22 Fairness .23 Communications .24 Diligence .25 Application of Law .26 Bias .27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .28 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Todd L. Vriesman, 99 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 78 agreed they had worked with Judge Vriesman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 78 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 0 1 2 3 4 Combined 3.26 Attorneys 2.63 Total Non-Attorneys 3.72 Juror 3.91 Non-Attorney Other* 3.09 Table 1 Judge Todd L. Vriesman Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.26 2.63 3.72 3.91 3.09 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Combined 73% Attorneys 51% Total Non-Attorneys 89% Juror 97% Non-Attorney Other 63% Table 2 Judge Todd L. Vriesman Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 73% 51% 89% 97% 63% Retention 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Todd L. Vriesman Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 2.71 N/A N/A N/A Application and 2.38 3.67 3.92 2.83 Knowledge of Law Communications 2.83 3.77 3.90 3.36 Diligence 2.48 3.69 3.88 3.10 Demeanor 2.73 3.74 3.91 3.20 Fairness N/A 3.71 3.95 2.95 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate Applicable* knowledge** Attorneys 111 1 32 45% 35% Total Non- 306 36 46 19% 8% Attorneys Staff 6 0 3 50% 0% Jurors 155 2 35 25% 10% Other Non- 145 34 8 7% 0% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased **The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Vriesman, 49 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 32 agreed they had worked with Judge Vriesman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 32 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, a total of 13,709 survey invitations were sent to 5,732 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices standing for retention in 2016. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.5 judges. 3,738 surveys were completed with an additional 1,818 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 42% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 67%. b. Methodology The 2015 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16, 2015. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16, 2015 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 24th, September 30th, and October 14th. Reminder calls were placed to the offices of selected attorneys in an attempt to increase response rates between November 12th and December 1st. Additional invitations were sent upon request during the reminder calls. Appellate staff attorneys received the same survey as other attorneys, but were invited separately with a series of email invitations starting with the initial invite on October 5th, 2015 and followed by reminders on October 14th and 22nd. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2016. Invitations were emailed to attorneys who had appeared before judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. The initial invitations were sent on January 19th and reminders were sent on January 29th and February 3rd. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 5 ## Page 8 and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2015, the question wording was carried over from the 2014 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 6 ## Page 9 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Todd L. Vriesman be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Todd L. Vriesman Total Retain 51% Neither 12% Total Not Retain 36% Figure 3 100% 80% 67% 60% 40% 33% 21% 18% 20% 13% 12% 15% 9% 6% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Vriesman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Vriesman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.34 Case Management Overall Average 2.71 3.29 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 2.72 3.32 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 2.64 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 2.67 3.41 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 2.70 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 6 Case Management Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Vriesman Judges Promptly issuing a decision on 24% 15% 21% 3% 6% 30% 2.70 3.41 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 33% 27% 18% 15% 6% -- 2.67 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 27% 12% 27% -- 9% 24% 2.64 3.32 motions Setting reasonable schedules 33% 30% 18% 3% 12% 3% 2.72 3.29 for cases Case Management Overall Average 2.71 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Vriesman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.18 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.38 3.15 Consistently applying laws and rules 2.23 3.15 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.25 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.06 are similar 1.83 3.15 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 2.50 3.27 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 2.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Vriesman Judges Being able to identify and 34% 19% 16% 25% 6% -- 2.50 3.27 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 33% 18% 18% 18% 9% 3% 2.50 3.15 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are -- 20% 33% 20% 7% 20% 1.83 3.06 similar Being fair and impartial to both 31% 22% 3% 28% 16% -- 2.25 3.15 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 27% 12% 18% 27% 9% 6% 2.23 3.15 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 2.38 3.18 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Vriesman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.39 Communications Overall Average 2.83 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.28 thorough and well reasoned 2.59 Making sure all participants understand the 3.51 proceedings 3.03 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 8 Communications Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Vriesman Judges Making sure all participants 42% 33% 15% 3% 6% -- 3.03 3.51 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 30% 18% 12% 12% 9% 18% 2.59 3.28 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 2.83 3.39 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Vriesman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.34 Demeanor Overall Average 2.73 3.26 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 2.61 3.33 Treating participants with respect 2.84 3.43 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 2.82 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 9 Demeanor Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 33 Vriesman Judges Giving proceedings a sense of 42% 24% 12% 15% 6% -- 2.82 3.43 dignity Treating participants with respect 44% 28% 6% 13% 9% -- 2.84 3.33 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 39% 18% 18% 12% 12% -- 2.61 3.26 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 2.73 3.34 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge Vriesman on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 3.27 Diligence Overall Average 2.48 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming 2.38 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.32 for cases 2.68 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.16 and rules 2.22 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 10 Diligence Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 32 Vriesman Judges Using good judgment in application of 27% 15% 18% 24% 12% 3% 2.22 3.16 relevant law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 39% 12% 24% 9% 9% 6% 2.68 3.32 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 24% 12% 6% 6% 15% 36% 2.38 3.38 consuming Diligence Overall Average 2.48 3.27 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Vriesman in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 8 100% 80% 60% 51% 42% 40% 33% 23% 17% 20% 11% 11% 8% 5% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Vriesman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Vriesman, 21 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 21 agreed they had worked with Judge Vriesman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 21 responses. a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 28 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 23 responded and 21 completed the survey. The response rate was 82% and the completion rate was 91%. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed evaluate the performance of district judges. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Qualtrics research suite survey software. The initial invitation was sent on November 4, 2015. A reminder email to those that had not already completed their evaluations was sent on November 16th. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 15 ## Page 18 e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 16 ## Page 19 Results Using a grade scale, where "A" is excellent along with B,C,D, or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one's overall performance as a judge by selecting the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don't have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please select "No Grade". Figure 9 All District Judges 3.55 Judge Vriesman 2.60 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Table 11 Evaluation by Appellate Court Judges Judge Todd L. All Vriesman Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Vriesman Judges Responses: 5 Overall performance as a 5% 15% -- -- 5% 75% 2.60 3.55 judge 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 17 ## Page 20 Survey of Non Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Todd L. Vriesman, 50 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 46 agreed they had worked with Judge Vriesman enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 46 responses. a. Response rates During the 2015 administration, 1,697 survey invitations have been sent to court staff members and 68,393 to other non-attorneys. Among court staff, 787 complete surveys have been received and an additional 192 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among court staff is 58% and the completion rate is 80%. Among other non-attorneys, 4,338 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,123 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among other non-attorneys is 11% and the completion rate is 80%. b. Methodology The 2015 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning September 24, 2015 and ending on February 22nd, 2016. Due to the ability to contact court staff via email, respondents were split into two groups for data collection: court staff and other non-attorneys. The court staff group includes staff members, interpreters and probation officers. The other non-attorney group includes jurors, defendants, witnesses, litigants, and law enforcement personnel. Court staff members were invited via emailed invitations sent on October 5th and a reminder sent on October 14th. Other non-attorneys where no email addresses were available were first mailed a pre- notification letter sent on September 24th informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on October 19, 2015. The process for other non-attorneys was repeated in January and February 2016 for those that had experience with judges standing for retention in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2015. For this cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 22nd, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 12th, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey closing on February 22nd. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 18 ## Page 21 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. Question Category Areas* Other Non- Court Staff attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 3 Communications 3 3 Demeanor 4 4 Diligence 5 5 Fairness 4 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses are also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 19 ## Page 22 At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and allowed to leave open ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 20 ## Page 23 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Vriesman be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 12 Judge Todd L. Vriesman Total Retain 89% Neither 2% Total Not Retain 9% Figure 10 100% 78% 80% 74% 60% 40% 20% 11% 12% 6% 7% 6% 2% 2% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Vriesman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 21 ## Page 24 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.74 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.54 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.74 3.58 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.70 3.65 Treating participants with respect 3.78 3.66 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.74 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 13 Demeanor Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 46 Vriesman Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 85% 11% -- 2% 2% -- 3.74 3.66 Treating participants with respect 87% 9% -- 4% -- -- 3.78 3.65 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 85% 9% 2% -- 4% -- 3.70 3.58 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 85% 11% -- 2% 2% -- 3.74 3.54 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.74 3.61 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 22 ## Page 25 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). Figure 12 3.60 Fairness Overall Average 3.71 Giving each side enough time to present his or her 3.64 case 3.78 3.63 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.85 3.55 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.63 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.72 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 14 Fairness Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 46 Vriesman Judges Giving participants an 85% 11% -- -- 4% -- 3.72 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 83% 9% 2% 2% 4% -- 3.63 3.55 case without bias Treating fairly people who 52% 4% 2% -- -- 41% 3.85 3.63 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 91% -- 2% -- 4% 2% 3.78 3.64 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.71 3.60 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 23 ## Page 26 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 13 3.71 Communications Overall Average 3.77 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can 3.75 hear what’s being said 3.80 3.71 Using language that everyone can understand 3.78 Making sure all participants understand the 3.67 proceedings 3.72 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 15 Communications Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 46 Vriesman Judges Making sure all participants understand the 85% 9% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.72 3.67 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 80% 17% 2% -- -- -- 3.78 3.71 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 93% 2% -- -- 4% -- 3.80 3.75 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.77 3.71 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 24 ## Page 27 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 14 3.62 Diligence Overall Average 3.69 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.57 wasted time 3.67 3.63 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.81 3.71 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.76 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.68 for cases 3.77 3.60 Beginning court on time 3.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 16 Diligence Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 46 Vriesman Judges Beginning court on time 74% 22% 2% 2% -- -- 3.67 3.60 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 89% 4% -- -- 4% 2% 3.77 3.68 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 89% 4% 2% 2% 2% -- 3.76 3.71 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 82% 9% -- -- 2% 7% 3.81 3.63 Managing court proceedings so that there is 80% 11% 7% -- 2% -- 3.67 3.57 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.69 3.62 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 25 ## Page 28 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA. Figure 15 3.56 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.67 3.55 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.68 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.56 outside pressure 3.70 3.58 Giving reasons for rulings 3.63 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Vriesman Table 17 Application of Law Judge Todd L. Vriesman All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 44 Vriesman Judges Giving reasons for rulings 78% 9% 4% -- 4% 4% 3.63 3.58 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 78% 4% 2% -- 4% 11% 3.70 3.56 outside pressure Being able to identify and 84% 7% -- 2% 4% 2% 3.68 3.55 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.67 3.56 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 26 ## Page 29 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Vriesman is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Vriesman is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 100% 85% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 2% 4% 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Vriesman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 27 ## Page 30 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Vriesman are. If you feel Judge Vriesman generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 83% 82% 80% 60% 40% 20% 6% 3% 7% 8% 4% 3% 4% 0% Sentences too Light 2.00 Sentences are 4.00 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Vriesman All District Judges 2016 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Todd L. Vriesman 28

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

Sources

2022 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
2016 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026