Jonathan L. Walker

Evaluation history

• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Commission vote: 7 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 68.6% yes

  117,477 yes · 53,777 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report 2013 Interim Survey Report 2011 Interim Survey Report The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends, by a vote of 7-0, that Judge Jonathan L. Walker BE RETAINED. Judge Walker was appointed to the El Paso County Court in May 2007.  Prior to his appointment, Judge Walker was a Public Defender.  Judge Walker received an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and a law degree from Wayne State University School of Law School.  Judge Walker has been very active in many community service activities including, United Way, The Urban League, Teen Court, The Arc, Mock Trial, Tessa, and Cheyenne Village. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Walker, reviewed opinions provided, observed him in court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys.  Among the survey questions was how strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained in office, or not be retained in office?"  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 80% recommended to retain, 15% recommended to not retain and 6% made no recommendation regarding retention.  Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey, 89% recommended to retain, 7% recommended to not retain and 5% made no recommendation regarding retention. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding). Judge Walker handles all matters within the jurisdiction of County Court. He also volunteers to handle District Court matters whenever he is available.  Judge Walker received very high marks in the attorney survey in the areas of overall demeanor, giving the parties respect and the dignity of the proceedings.  The Commission feels he needs to be more measured and not rushed in trial.  Judge Walker received very high marks in the non-attorney survey in the areas of compassion, communication, and overall fairness, all well above the averages.
• 2010 retention cycle

  Trial Court · El Paso · El Paso

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 65.2% yes

  100,410 yes · 53,488 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2010 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2010 Retention Survey Report 2009 Interim Survey Report Need an accessible PDF Document version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a unanimous vote of 9-0, recommends that Judge Jonathan L. Walker BE RETAINED. One Commissioner was absent. Judge Walker received an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and a law degree from Wayne State Law School. He served with the U.S. Army Special Forces in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam era. Judge Walker has been very involved in community service activities including board membership with both ARC and Urban League of the Pikes Peak Region, volunteering with the Community Coordinated Response Committee and Local Access to Justice Committee and serving as a Teen Court and Mock Trial judge. He has continued his legal education through attendance at a variety of legal and judicial education seminars. Judge Walker was appointed to the County Court bench in May, 2007. Prior to his appointment he served nine years as the Deputy Public Defender in the Office of the State Public Defender. Previous to his public defender position he was in private litigation practice for twenty years. Results of the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report: Attorneys indicate that Judge Walker scored somewhat above average in all areas when compared to all county judges and scored above average in all areas on the survey of non-attorneys. Approximately two hundred attorneys and non-attorneys participated in the survey. Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 80% recommended to retain, 16% not to retain and 5% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 84% recommended to retain and 17% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 90% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain and 7% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 95% recommended to retain and 4% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)

Surveys & reports

• 2014 cycle
  • 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Jonathan L. Walker El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Walker: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the attorney questionnaire is included in the final section of this report. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is included 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. Jonathan L. Walker May 28, 2013 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, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President 5140 SAN FRANCISCO RD NE, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109 WWW.RPINC.COM 505-821-5454 ## Page 4 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Jonathan L. Walker received an overall combined average grade of 3.48 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.27, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.68, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Walker Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.48 3.27 3.68 Sample Size - 126 221 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2009, 2010, and 2012. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Table 2 shows Judge Walker’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Walker Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2009 3.51 3.35 34 3.66 76 2010 3.48 3.17 40 3.78 54 2012 3.47 3.29 52 3.64 91 Overall 3.48 3.27 126 3.68 221 Table 2 1 ## Page 5 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.84, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.24. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Walker’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Walker Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Walker Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.88 131 59% 3.38 90 41% 3.84 3.24 Table 3 *Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 112266)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 126 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 18% 12% 2% 2% 13% 3.35 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 56% 17% 11% 9% 6% 0% 3.09 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 59% 19% 8% 6% 2% 6% 3.33 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 20% 13% 2% 2% 2% 3.37 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.29 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 19% 8% 10% 5% 2% 3.14 3.27 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 18% 9% 12% 8% 1% 2.96 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 53% 13% 8% 9% 4% 13% 3.18 3.05 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 60% 14% 5% 7% 10% 4% 3.11 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.10 3.18 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 80% 11% 6% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 55% 13% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.41 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.56 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 71% 17% 5% 4% 3% 1% 3.49 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 85% 9% 5% 1% 0% 1% 3.79 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 13% 9% 6% 10% 1% 3.12 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 57% 11% 9% 9% 11% 3% 2.98 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 14% 10% 6% 12% 2% 2.98 3.17 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 54% 20% 7% 5% 9% 6% 3.12 3.26 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 63% 18% 6% 2% 3% 8% 3.47 3.38 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.19 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.27 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 1% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 25% Completely neutral 53% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 22% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 14% 3% Don't know or not sure 4% 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 60% 56% Recommend retain 13% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 7% Total Retain 73% 79% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 20% 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 60% 56% Recommend retain 13% 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 8% 9% Recommend not retain 8% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 12% 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 0% Total Retain 73% 78% Neither 8% 9% Total Not Retain 20% 12% Don't Know 0% 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.27 Overall Average Grade 3.31 3.29 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.35 case after trial. 3.50 3.09 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.33 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.37 3.37 3.10 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.18 3.14 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.27 2.96 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.15 3.18 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.05 3.11 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.56 Q3. Overall Communication 3.41 3.70 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.41 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.31 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.35 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.33 3.49 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.41 3.79 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.12 neutral manner. 3.24 2.98 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.23 3.19 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgment in application of 2.98 relevant laws and rules. 3.17 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.12 being prepared for cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.47 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.38 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 6% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 53% Completely Neutral 51% 22% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 14% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% 4% Don't know/not sure 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 56% 13% Recommend retain 23% Excluding DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Walker Judges* Total Retain 73% 79% 8% Recommend not retain Neither 8% 9% 6% Total Not Retain 20% 13% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 60% Strongly recommend retain 56% 13% Recommend retain 22% Including DK Respondents 8% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 9% Judge Walker Judges* 8% Recommend not retain Total Retain 73% 78% 5% Neither 8% 9% 12% Total Not Retain 20% 12% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total DK 0% 0% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 211)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 221 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 76% 15% 3% 3% 1% 2% 3.65 3.57 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 11% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3.73 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 77% 13% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.64 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 15% 4% 1% 2% 3% 3.64 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.67 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 11% 3% 1% 1% 2% 3.72 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 76% 13% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3.63 3.50 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 4% 2% 2% 32% 3.59 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 12% 4% 2% 1% 5% 3.67 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.65 3.54 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 84% 10% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 13% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.76 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 86% 11% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3.83 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.78 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 69% 20% 3% 3% 1% 4% 3.61 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 13% 2% 0% 1% 2% 3.75 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 65% 14% 5% 1% 2% 14% 3.62 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 76% 10% 2% 2% 1% 9% 3.74 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 74% 15% 4% 3% 1% 2% 3.60 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.66 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 15% 3% 2% 1% 9% 3.65 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 67% 11% 2% 2% 1% 17% 3.69 3.49 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 74% 12% 2% 3% 2% 8% 3.65 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.66 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.68 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 10% 13% Competely neutral 79% 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 14% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.20 0.13 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 7% 12% Competely neutral 82% 76% Lenient sentencing total 13% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.15 0.09 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 69% 67% Recommend retain 17% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 86% 85% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 65% 64% Recommend retain 16% 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 7% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 6% 5% Total Retain 81% 81% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 5% 9% Don't Know 6% 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.68 Overall Average Grade 3.55 3.67 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.65 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.57 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.73 3.59 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.64 manner. 3.51 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.64 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.46 3.65 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.54 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.72 heard. 3.57 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.63 case without bias. 3.50 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.59 themselves. 3.49 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.67 or her case. 3.58 3.78 Q3. Overall Communications 3.65 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.75 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.62 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.76 understand. 3.65 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.83 can hear what's being said. 3.68 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.66 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.55 3.61 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.46 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.75 proceedings. 3.65 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.62 3.55 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.74 3.60 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.60 little wasted time. 3.49 3.66 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.48 3.65 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.47 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.69 possible outside pressure. 3.49 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.65 relevant facts. 3.47 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.20 Jonathan L. Walker 0.13 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.15 Jonathan L. Walker 0.09 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 69% Strongly recommend retain 67% 17% Recommend retain 18% Excluding DK Respondents 7% Neither retain nor not retain 6% All Cnty Judge Walker Judges* 2% Recommend not retain Total Retain 86% 85% 3% Neither 7% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 9% 4% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 65% Strongly recommend retain 64% 16% Recommend retain 17% 7% Neither retain nor not retain 6% Including DK Respondents All Cnty 2% Judge Walker Judges* Recommend not retain 3% Total Retain 81% 81% Neither 7% 6% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 5% 9% 6% Total DK 6% 5% Don't know enough to make a 6% recommendation 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 14 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 16 ## Page 20 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County 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 county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county 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 county judges. The percentages are shown both including and excluding “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 County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the 17 ## Page 21 Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005, there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall cooperation rate of 44.5% for district judges and 35.3% for county judges. An equivalent cooperation rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver)  District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive an interim evaluation in 2013. RPI surveyed non-attorneys with courtroom experience, including: law enforcement personnel, witnesses, crime victims, jurors, criminal defendants, and civil litigants. Non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return 18 ## Page 22 envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the rating scale for the “retention” question was changed to: Strongly recommend retain, Recommend retain, Neither recommend nor not recommend retain, Recommend not retain, Strongly recommend not retain, or Don’t know enough to make a recommendation. Due to the changes in the response categories for the retention question, the results to this question have only been compiled among the survey respondents from this year’s interim survey. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County 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 county judges receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for 19 ## Page 23 all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions asked, though the strengths and weaknesses questions have been posed in every survey. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rate. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Walker is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding Trial Judges surveys for all county judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 65 43 0 0 22 33.8% Defense Attorneys 246 154 4 0 88 36.4% Other Attorneys Criminal 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 2 2 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 60 40 4 0 16 28.6% Total Attorneys 375 241 8 0 126 34.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 238 148 48 13 29 15.3% Law Enforcement 10 7 1 0 2 22.2% Defendant 416 222 144 5 45 16.5% Civil Litigant 65 31 19 5 10 21.7% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 281 129 16 5 131 49.4% Employees, including Interpreters 3 0 0 0 3 100.0% Probation Officers 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 1015 538 228 28 221 28.1% Grand Total: 1390 779 236 28 347 30.1% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 21 ## Page 25 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3217 2165 115 0 937 30.2% Defense Attorneys 12100 7642 409 0 4049 34.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 55 32 3 0 20 38.5% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1497 844 77 0 576 40.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2334 1255 161 0 918 42.2% GAL 2 0 0 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 19205 11938 765 0 6502 35.3% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 82 44 32 4 2 4.0% Witness 4366 2226 975 208 957 28.2% Other 444 277 117 9 41 12.5% Law Enforcement 3592 2698 289 95 510 15.4% Defendant 29046 15902 9969 350 2825 14.8% Civil Litigant 10118 5508 2998 217 1395 19.6% Witness 901 481 209 17 194 28.0% Other 21 10 3 1 7 38.9% Jurors 14815 6796 1173 363 6483 47.5% Employees, including Interpreters 222 74 29 25 94 48.7% Probation Officers 61 18 5 2 36 64.3% Total Non-attorneys 63668 34034 15799 1291 12544 26.2% Grand Total: 82873 45972 16564 1291 19046 28.7% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6502 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 19% 5% 2% 1% 21% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 8% 3% 1% 17% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 4% 2% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 5% 3% 3% 3.27 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 41% 18% 10% 6% 5% 20% 3.05 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 24% 9% 4% 4% 8% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.18 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 22% 7% 2% 1% 1% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 19% 8% 3% 2% 24% 3.31 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.41 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.41 4b. Treating participants with respect. 67% 18% 7% 4% 3% 1% 3.42 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 59% 19% 10% 6% 5% 1% 3.24 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 55% 22% 9% 5% 4% 4% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.33 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 53% 24% 10% 5% 5% 2% 3.17 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 23% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3.26 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 54% 19% 7% 3% 3% 14% 3.38 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 3% Don't know or not sure 4% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 79% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 56% Recommend retain 22% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 12% Don't Know 0% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 12544 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.57 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 76% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 73% 15% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.51 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 17% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.46 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.53 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.57 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 72% 14% 5% 3% 5% 2% 3.50 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 52% 10% 3% 2% 4% 29% 3.49 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 73% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.58 Overall Fairness 3.54 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.62 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 76% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 78% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.68 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.65 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.46 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 15% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.55 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 3% 6% 3.60 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 3% 2% 3.49 time. Overall Diligence 3.55 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 15% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 61% 12% 4% 2% 4% 17% 3.49 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 67% 14% 5% 3% 4% 7% 3.47 Overall Application of Law 3.48 Overall Average Grade: 3.55 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 13% Competely neutral 79% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.13 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 12% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.09 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 85% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 64% Recommend retain 17% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 5% Total Retain 81% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 9% Don't Know 5% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 26 ## Page 30 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 31 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 32 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 2 ## Page 33 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, Don’t know enough to make a recommendation . 6 in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 34 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2014 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Jonathan L. Walker El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Walker: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report. This report includes the survey results from two important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; and 2) non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have knowledge of your performance as a judge. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: 1. A brief summary of the results of the attorney and non-attorney surveys. 2. The numerical results of the survey of attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments attorneys made about your judicial performance. In some instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 3. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondents made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. 4. The 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. If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 505-821-5454 or by email at sanderoff@rpinc.com (please put the words “Judicial Performance” in the subject line), and for any other questions you might have about the survey please call the Executive Director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, Kent Wagner, at 303-928-7779. Best regards, Brian Sanderoff President ## Page 3 Summary of Results Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. On average, Judge Jonathan L. Walker received an overall combined average grade of 3.53 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.32, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.73, divided by two. The average combined grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.43 [not shown below]. Judge Walker Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.53 3.32 3.73 Sample Size - 135 236 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Walker’s overall average grades for up to four years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Walker Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2010 3.48 3.17 40 3.78 54 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.47 3.29 52 3.64 91 2013 3.66 3.52 43 3.79 91 Overall 3.53 3.32 135 3.73 236 Table 2 1 ## Page 4 Comparison of Jurors vs. Non-Jurors Among Non-Attorney Population Among the non-attorney population, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non- jurors. The juror overall average grade for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.78, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors is 3.28. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Walker’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All County Judge Walker Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.92 157 67% 3.36 79 33% 3.78 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113355)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 135 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 52% 22% 11% 1% 2% 12% 3.37 3.50 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 19% 12% 6% 5% 0% 3.21 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 57% 21% 8% 6% 2% 6% 3.31 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 21% 13% 2% 1% 2% 3.42 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.33 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 21% 7% 9% 4% 3% 3.19 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 20% 9% 10% 8% 2% 3.00 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 53% 16% 7% 10% 3% 11% 3.19 3.01 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 60% 14% 6% 4% 11% 6% 3.15 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.13 3.16 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 78% 13% 8% 1% 0% 0% 3.69 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 59% 12% 8% 2% 3% 16% 3.44 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.57 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 73% 15% 7% 3% 2% 1% 3.55 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 86% 9% 4% 1% 0% 1% 3.81 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 63% 16% 9% 4% 8% 1% 3.23 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 12% 9% 8% 9% 4% 3.06 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.41 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 60% 16% 9% 5% 9% 2% 3.13 3.15 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 54% 21% 9% 5% 8% 4% 3.14 3.24 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 61% 20% 5% 2% 2% 9% 3.50 3.36 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.26 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.32 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 3 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 1% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 25% Completely neutral 56% 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 24% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 11% 2% Don't know or not sure 3% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 63% 55% Recommend retain 17% 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% 9% Recommend not retain 6% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 9% 7% Total Retain 80% 78% Neither 6% 9% Total Not Retain 15% 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.32 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.33 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.41 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.37 case after trial. 3.50 3.21 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.31 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.42 3.37 3.13 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.16 3.19 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.25 3.00 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.13 3.19 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.01 3.15 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.25 when circumstances are similar. 3.57 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.69 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.49 the proceedings. 3.44 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.41 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.55 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.39 3.81 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.23 neutral manner. 3.20 3.06 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.21 3.26 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.13 relevant laws and rules. 3.15 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.14 being prepared for cases. 3.24 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.50 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.36 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 6% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% 56% Completely Neutral 51% 24% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 11% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 3% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? 63% Strongly recommend retain 55% 17% Recommend retain 23% 6% All Cnty Neither retain nor not retain 9% Judge Walker Judges* Total Retain 80% 78% 6% Neither 6% 9% Recommend not retain 6% Total Not Retain 15% 13% 9% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 223366)) ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 236 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 12% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3.70 3.59 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 86% 8% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3.77 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 79% 12% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3.66 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 80% 13% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3.71 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.71 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 84% 9% 2% 0% 3% 2% 3.75 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 10% 3% 1% 3% 2% 3.67 3.52 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 55% 7% 3% 1% 2% 33% 3.66 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 80% 10% 2% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.70 3.56 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 86% 9% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.79 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 84% 11% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3.79 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 89% 7% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3.87 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.82 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 77% 14% 3% 1% 1% 4% 3.71 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 1% 0% 2% 3% 3.76 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 70% 9% 4% 1% 1% 15% 3.71 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 79% 8% 2% 1% 1% 9% 3.80 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 79% 12% 4% 2% 1% 3% 3.69 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.73 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 74% 13% 3% 2% 2% 7% 3.67 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 70% 8% 1% 2% 1% 17% 3.74 3.52 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 76% 10% 1% 2% 3% 9% 3.68 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.70 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.73 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 5% 11% Competely neutral 83% 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 12% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.28 0.08 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average Sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 5% 10% Competely neutral 84% 76% Lenient sentencing total 11% 14% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.27 -0.01 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% 68% Recommend retain 14% 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 5% 6% Recommend not retain 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 89% 86% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 7% 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.73 Overall Average Grade 3.57 3.71 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.70 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.59 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.77 3.62 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.66 manner. 3.53 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.71 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.50 3.70 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.56 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.75 heard. 3.59 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.67 case without bias. 3.52 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.66 themselves. 3.52 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.73 or her case. 3.60 3.82 Q3. Overall Communications 3.67 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.79 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.64 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.79 understand. 3.67 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.87 can hear what's being said. 3.70 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker 11 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 15 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grades 3.73 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.57 3.71 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.50 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.76 proceedings. 3.67 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.71 3.57 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.80 3.62 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.69 little wasted time. 3.51 3.70 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.50 3.67 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.49 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.74 possible outside pressure. 3.52 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.68 relevant facts. 3.50 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 -0.28 Jonathan L. Walker 0.08 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution 1-A negative average score indicates bias toward the defense, and a positive average score indicates bias toward prosecution. Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. 2 -0.27 Jonathan L. Walker -0.01 All County Judges* -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh 2-A negative average score indicates sentences are lenient, and a positive average score indicates sentences are harsh. Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 12 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 16 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? 75% Strongly recommend retain 68% 14% Recommend retain 18% 5% Neither retain nor not retain All Cnty 6% Judge Walker Judges* 4% Total Retain 89% 86% Recommend not retain 3% Neither 5% 6% Total Not Retain 7% 8% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges* * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only judges that are due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed attorney evaluations for each judge by excluding those not due to receive a retention evaluation in 2014. The number of possible judges that attorney respondents could evaluate was 10. Attorneys are first mailed a letter inviting them to complete the survey online. The letter provides the link to the online survey, as well as a unique password to access the survey. Approximately one week later, attorneys are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Potential respondents who do not complete the survey after the second email are then telephoned and asked to either complete the survey by phone, or to complete it online. Since 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge, and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 15 ## Page 19 b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. For this evaluation cycle, the “Don’t know enough to make a recommendation” response category was excluded from the retention question. c. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding County 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 county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county 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 county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution to the retention question is then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. Most spelling and typographical errors have been corrected. 16 ## Page 20 e. Cooperation Rate: The overall cooperation rate for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations resulting in an overall response rate of 47.0% for district judges and 40.5% for county judges. An equivalent response rate for an individual judge is computed in the same manner. Undeliverable surveys have been excluded from the cooperation rates. II Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges a. Sample: Research & Polling, Inc. received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from the following primary sources:  Colorado Judicial Department  Colorado District Attorneys’ Council  Colorado Public Defender’s Office  Denver County Courts  District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) The data from these different sources are combined, duplicates removed, and addresses corrected. Only the judges standing for retention in 2014 were evaluated during this reporting cycle. The intent was to increase the number of completed non-attorney evaluations for each retention judge by excluding those not standing for retention. All non-attorneys with courtroom experience were surveyed (i.e. court employees, court interpreters, probation officers, witnesses, law enforcement, jurors, crime victims, etc.). The only exception to this were the criminal defendants and civil litigants for which RPI selected a random sample. Court staff, probation officers, and court interpreters were asked to complete the survey online. They are sent an email invitation to complete the online survey, which also provides the Web address and their unique password. About a week after the first email is sent, a reminder email is sent, providing the same information. Other non-attorneys were surveyed via standard mail. First, they were mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the postcard was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Since 2010, the non-attorney section of the Judicial Performance Survey reports have been based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of survey results collected over a period of time equal to the judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a county judge as an example: as survey data is 17 ## Page 21 collected, it is pooled together for four years. After four years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. b. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. (See Questionnaire section.) These grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. The A through F scale was chosen because it is almost universally recognized and understood. This makes it easy for respondents to complete their questionnaire, and for the public to interpret the results. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding County 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 county judges standing for retention in 2014 and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county retention judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county retention judges. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The last part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges section of the report lists the comments the non-attorneys made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial 18 ## Page 22 Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. The number to the left of each comment refers to the same non-attorney respondent in both the strengths section and the weaknesses section. e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the non-attorney survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables, and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges with whom they may not have had sufficient experience. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Walker is shown on the following page, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the Attorney and Non-Attorney Regarding County Judges surveys for all county judges. 19 ## Page 23 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 65 42 2 0 21 33.3% Defense Attorneys 248 143 12 0 93 39.4% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 71 43 7 0 21 32.8% Total Attorneys 386 230 21 0 135 37.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 231 141 53 12 25 14.0% Law Enforcement 16 10 2 0 4 28.6% Defendant 427 234 152 6 35 12.7% Civil Litigant 95 56 23 4 12 16.7% Witness 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Jurors 355 172 19 7 157 46.7% Employees, including Interpreters 10 5 2 0 3 37.5% Total Non-attorneys 1135 619 251 29 236 26.7% Grand Total: 1521 849 272 29 371 29.7% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3594 2045 401 0 1148 36.0% Defense Attorneys 14216 7585 1564 0 5067 40.0% Other Attorneys Criminal 74 36 11 0 27 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1112 539 102 0 471 46.6% Other Attorneys Civil 2806 1314 354 0 1138 46.4% GAL 3 0 1 0 2 100.0% Total Attorneys 21805 11519 2433 0 7853 40.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 107 56 46 3 2 3.3% Witness 4737 2452 972 217 1096 29.1% Other 250 158 51 8 33 16.6% Law Enforcement 5197 3617 687 84 809 17.9% Defendant 28477 14984 10765 293 2435 13.7% Civil Litigant 13361 7324 3911 296 1830 19.4% Witness 487 271 111 9 96 25.5% Other 33 12 5 1 15 53.6% Jurors 14948 6911 1159 303 6575 47.7% Employees, including Interpreters 1002 410 129 0 463 53.0% Probation Officers 2 0 1 0 1 100.0% Total Non-attorneys 68601 36195 17837 1214 13355 26.3% Grand Total: 90406 47714 20270 1214 21208 30.2% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 7853 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 50% 18% 5% 2% 1% 24% 3.50 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 23% 9% 3% 2% 1% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 49% 22% 7% 3% 2% 18% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 58% 24% 8% 3% 3% 4% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.41 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 54% 24% 10% 5% 4% 3% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 23% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 40% 18% 10% 6% 6% 20% 3.01 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 51% 23% 8% 4% 4% 10% 3.25 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.16 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 2% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 44% 18% 7% 3% 3% 25% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 8% 4% 3% 1% 3.39 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 19% 10% 6% 6% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 21% 9% 5% 5% 5% 3.21 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 23% 11% 5% 5% 3% 3.15 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 52% 22% 9% 4% 4% 9% 3.24 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 53% 18% 7% 3% 3% 15% 3.36 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 25% Completely neutral 51% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 55% Recommend retain 23% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 9% Recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 78% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 13% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges All County Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 13355 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 74% 17% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.59 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 77% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 74% 14% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.53 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 71% 16% 5% 2% 4% 2% 3.50 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.56 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 1% 3.59 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 73% 14% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3.52 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 54% 10% 3% 2% 3% 28% 3.52 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 74% 13% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3.60 Overall Fairness 3.56 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 77% 14% 4% 2% 2% 1% 3.64 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 77% 16% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 79% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.70 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.67 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 67% 18% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3.50 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3.67 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 64% 16% 5% 2% 2% 12% 3.57 4d.Being prepared for cases. 72% 14% 4% 2% 2% 6% 3.62 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 68% 18% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.51 time. Overall Diligence 3.57 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 15% 5% 2% 4% 6% 3.49 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 12% 4% 2% 4% 16% 3.52 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 68% 14% 4% 2% 4% 7% 3.50 Overall Application of Law 3.50 Overall Average Grade: 3.57 * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Note: Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. 'DK/NA' = Don't Know / Not Applicable. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding County Judges Average Grade All County Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% Competely neutral 80% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.08 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 10% Competely neutral 76% Lenient sentencing total 14% Average -0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 68% Recommend retain 18% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 86% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 8% * Includes only the County judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 30 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2d and the “bias” question between 5 and 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade Judge [Last Name] on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NA b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NA d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NA 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NA b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NA c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NA d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NA 3. Communications: a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NA b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NA 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NA b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NA c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NA d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NA 1 ## Page 31 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NA b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NA c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NA Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain in office . 5 Recommend retain in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office . 3 Recommend not retain in office . 2 Strongly recommend not retain in office . 1 2 ## Page 32 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? _ _ _ _ Commission on Judicial Performance _ _ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office . 5 Recommend he/she be retained in office . 4 Neither recommend nor not recommend h/s be retained in office .. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Recommend he/she not be retained in office. 2 Name]’s courtroom or you feel that you do not have sufficient Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office . 1 experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion on the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Barcode ## Page 33 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Maintaining appropriate control over 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
• 2010 cycle
  • 2009 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Jonathon L. Walker El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80901 Dear Judge Walker: This year, The State Commission on Judicial Performance has requested Talmey- Drake Research & Strategy to provide interim survey reports concerning all justices and judges. Going forward, there will continue to be survey reports on retention judges in retention election years and interim survey reports on all judges in non- retention years. Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy conducted the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey among people who have been in a state courtroom in once capacity or another, or who have otherwise been affected by the performance of a judge. This report contains the results of those who have observed, or who are knowledgeable about, your judicial performance and who responded to the survey. 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 for each question that used an “A” to “F” scale, the average grade for each section of the questionnaire, and an overall average grade for questions 1a through 5c combined. Following the graphs, are a series of tables showing the percentage distribution of grades 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. The survey of attorneys was conducted online; a copy of the questionnaire is provided at the back of this report. Non-attorney Results & Comments: Similar to the attorney section, this portion of the report contains graphs (again including the overall average of questions 1a through 5c on the non-attorney questionnaire), tables of the percentage distribution of grades for each substantive question in the survey. The non-attorney respondents 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 third section of the report discusses the methodology of the survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.447.9386 ## Page 3 The Honorable Jonathon L. Walker September 24, 2009 Page 2 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 ext 1, 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 303-837-3665. Best regards, Paul A. Talmey President enc: ## Page 4 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2277)) ## Page 5 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 27 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 67% 0% 4% 4% 0% 26% 3.75 3.48 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 22% 7% 4% 7% 0% 3.22 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 70% 4% 4% 7% 0% 15% 3.61 3.36 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 74% 11% 7% 0% 4% 4% 3.58 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.54 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 56% 26% 0% 15% 4% 0% 3.15 3.25 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 19% 7% 19% 4% 0% 2.96 3.15 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 44% 7% 7% 4% 7% 30% 3.11 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 50% 21% 0% 8% 4% 17% 3.25 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.12 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 81% 4% 7% 0% 4% 4% 3.65 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 50% 8% 8% 0% 0% 35% 3.65 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.65 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 22% 4% 0% 7% 0% 3.41 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 74% 15% 11% 0% 0% 0% 3.63 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 56% 7% 7% 19% 11% 0% 2.78 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 56% 11% 4% 15% 11% 4% 2.88 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.18 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 11% 4% 15% 11% 4% 2.88 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 63% 4% 11% 4% 7% 11% 3.25 3.23 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 59% 11% 7% 0% 4% 19% 3.50 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.21 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.31 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 2 ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges Sample Size = 27 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 30% Completely neutral 52% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 13% 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 22% 2% Don't know/not sure 13% 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 65% 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 12% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 19% 7% Total Retain 77% 86% Total Not Retain 23% 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 63% 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 4% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 4% 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 19% 7% Total Retain 74% 81% Undecided/Don't Know 4% 5% Total Not Retain 23% 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 3 ## Page 7 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.31 Overall Average Grade 3.28 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.54 3.40 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.75 case after trial. 3.48 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.22 proceedings. 3.40 3.61 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.58 3.35 3.12 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.14 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.15 relevant facts. 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 2.96 3.15 3.11 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.25 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.20 3.65 Q3. Overall Communication 3.36 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.65 the proceedings. 3.49 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.65 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.23 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges Ju d20g09e In tJeroimn Juaditcihal aPenrfo rLma.n Wce Saurlvkeyer 4 ## Page 8 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.18 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.30 3.41 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.40 3.63 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.37 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 2.78 in a neutral manner. 3.20 2.88 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules 3.23 3.21 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.25 5a. Using good judgement in application of 2.88 releveant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.25 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.23 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.50 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.35 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% 52% Completely Neutral 46% 13% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% 22% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 13% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 65% Strongly recommend retain in office 70% 12% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% All Cnty Judge Walker Judges 4% Total Retain 77% 86% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 23% 14% 7% 19% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 63% Strongly recommend retain in office 66% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% All Cnty 4% Judge Walker Judges Undecided 5% Total Retain 74% 81% Undecided 4% 5% 4% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 23% 13% 6% 19% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 6 ## Page 10 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 113)) ## Page 11 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 133 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 83% 9% 3% 0% 1% 4% 3.81 3.52 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 9% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3.81 3.53 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 79% 11% 4% 2% 0% 5% 3.74 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 17% 3% 0% 2% 4% 3.70 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.77 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 82% 8% 4% 2% 0% 5% 3.79 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 10% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3.70 3.43 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 8% 2% 1% 0% 35% 3.77 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 4% 0% 0% 6% 3.80 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.77 3.48 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 83% 11% 2% 0% 0% 5% 3.84 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 85% 10% 1% 0% 1% 4% 3.85 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 87% 8% 1% 0% 1% 4% 3.88 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.86 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 61% 24% 4% 2% 1% 8% 3.55 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 11% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3.79 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 16% 5% 0% 2% 16% 3.63 3.50 4d. Being prepared for cases. 74% 13% 2% 1% 1% 10% 3.76 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 20% 3% 0% 2% 8% 3.65 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 14% 3% 2% 0% 13% 3.72 3.41 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 61% 15% 2% 1% 0% 21% 3.73 3.43 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 71% 15% 2% 0% 1% 11% 3.74 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.73 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.75 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 8 ## Page 12 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges Sample Size = 133 6. Average bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 6% 14% Competely neutral 86% 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.02 0.15 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. Average sentencing [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 4% 16% Competely neutral 84% 73% Lenient sentencing total 11% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.28 0.15 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 86% 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 11% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 3% 7% Total Retain 97% 90% Total Not Retain 3% 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 80% 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 10% 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 2% 6% Total Retain 90% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 9% Total Not Retain 2% 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 9 ## Page 13 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.75 Overall Average Grade 3.49 3.77 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.48 3.81 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.52 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.81 3.53 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.74 manner. 3.47 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.70 understanding for those who appear before the judge 3.39 3.77 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.48 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.79 heard. 3.53 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.70 case without bias. 3.43 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.77 themselves. 3.42 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.80 or her case. 3.52 3.86 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.61 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.84 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.58 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.85 understand. 3.61 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.88 can hear what's being said. 3.65 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges Ju 2d00g9 eIn teJrimo Jnudaictiahl Paernfo rmLa.n cWe Suarvlekyer 10 ## Page 14 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.68 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.49 3.55 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.36 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.79 proceedings. 3.62 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.63 3.50 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.76 3.54 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.65 little wasted time. 3.43 3.73 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.42 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.72 3.41 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.73 possible outside pressure. 3.43 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.74 relevant facts. 3.42 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.02 Jonathan L. Walker 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.28 Jonathan L. Walker 0.15 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 11 ## Page 15 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 86% Strongly recommend retain in office 81% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Walker Judges Total Retain 97% 90% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 3% 10% 3% 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 80% Strongly recommend retain in office 74% 10% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 7% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Walker Judges Total Retain 90% 82% 0% Undecided 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 2% 9% 2% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 12 ## Page 16 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 17 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy Data Sources for Sample Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data that included the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources were then combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. Talmey-Drake then conducted two separate surveys for the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey concerning county judges: A survey of attorneys and a survey of non-attorneys who had likely been in County Court. Responses to surveys conducted in prior years that had not been used in a previous Judicial Performance report were combined with the above data to create the total sample used in the 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey. Attorney Survey Attorney Sample: Talmey-Drake identified all the attorneys who were in the data provided by the organizations listed above, and all identified attorneys were included in the sample. As to be expected many attorneys had appeared in more than one judge’s courtroom, so each attorney was assigned from one to five judges to evaluate, depending on how many different judges with whom he or she was associated in the case data. For those attorneys who were in the case data for more than five judges, they were asked to evaluate the five judges they were associated with the most. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 14 ## Page 18 Attorney Survey: The Attorney Survey was conducted online. Sampled attorneys were first sent a letter introducing them to the Survey and informing them that they would soon be receiving an email with a link to the Survey. The letter also included the Survey’s Web address, and a password if the respondent wished to take the survey before receiving the email. Approximately one week after the letter was mailed a first email was sent, and a week after that a second reminder email was sent. In order to increase the number of attorney responses, particularly for judges with few attorney survey evaluations, attorneys who had not responded after the second email request were telephoned and asked to either go online to take the survey, or if they preferred, to complete the survey by telephone. Attorney Questions: The questions used online for the 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey of attorneys asked respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas. These areas were Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A list of the questions are included in the last section of this report. Attorney Cooperation Rate: The cooperation rate for the Attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations for that judges minus the undeliverable emails to attorneys in the sample for that judge. A table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey is shown later in this section of the report, as is a table showing the cooperation rates for Judge Walker. The 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey was the first time in which the Attorney regarding Trial Judges survey was conducted online. A total of 4,163 attorneys were asked to participate in the online survey and on average to evaluate 2.81 judges each—a total of 11,688 potential attorney evaluations. Just over fifty-two percent (52.2%) of attorneys surveyed evaluated one or more judges. The average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.25 for a total of 4,883 attorney evaluations completed (41.8%). Note, these figures are only for the online survey (plus telephone follow-up interviews) and will not match the numbers in the Total Response Count table on page below, which include attorney evaluations from prior mail surveys. Non-attorney Survey Non-Attorney Sample: Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample of names was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 15 ## Page 19 Non-Attorney Survey: Each person whose name was sampled for the Non- Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Non-Attorney Questions: The questionnaire used in the 2009 Judicial Performance Survey asked non-attorney respondents to use a grade of A, B, C, D, or F (Fail) to assess the judge’s performance in five different areas: Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. These scores were then converted to a numerical value where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. A copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of this report. Non-attorney Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non- attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses & refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Walker is shown below, and immediately following is a table of the overall cooperation rates for the 2009 Interim Survey, again by type of respondent. 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 16 ## Page 20 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 16 10 0 0 6 37.5% Defense Attorneys 7 5 1 0 1 16.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 45 27 0 0 18 40.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Other Attorneys Civil 7 5 0 0 2 28.6% Total Attorneys 76 47 2 0 27 36.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 64 39 18 5 2 4.3% Other 73 44 22 0 7 13.7% Law Enforcement 132 73 40 5 14 15.2% Defendant 307 157 122 3 25 13.5% Civil Litigant 84 54 23 0 7 11.5% Jurors 155 67 9 1 78 53.4% Total Non-attorneys 815 434 234 14 133 22.9% Grand Total: 891 481 236 14 160 24.4% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 17 ## Page 21 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 2,251 1,169 82 2 998 46.0% Defense Attorneys 3,453 1,852 128 6 1,467 44.1% Other Attorneys Crmnl 3,283 1,887 85 4 1,307 40.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3,123 1,286 219 7 1,611 55.5% Other Attorneys Civil 2,647 1,422 94 4 1,127 44.1% Attorneys, Unknown Role 393 29 41 3 320 90.9% Total Attorneys 15,150 7,645 649 26 6,830 47.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 11,127 5,895 2,627 213 2,392 28.1% Defendant 56,759 28,224 22,971 543 5,021 14.9% Victim 301 197 82 6 16 7.3% Witness 9,152 4,836 3,013 376 927 15.1% Other 4,225 2,481 1,151 55 538 17.5% Civil Litigant 20,328 11,335 4,758 289 3,946 25.3% Witness 298 161 45 4 88 34.8% Other 327 165 79 6 77 31.0% Non-attnys, Unknown Role 546 276 190 4 76 21.3% Total Non-attorneys 103,063 53,570 34,916 1,496 13,081 19.2% Others Jurors 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total Other 30,703 12,725 1,443 392 16,143 55.2% Total 148,916 73,940 37,008 1,914 36,054 32.2% 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 18 ## Page 22 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 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. The Colorado Judicial Performance Evaluation Survey is not 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 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 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. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 19 ## Page 23 Survey Results The report shows the Attorney and Non-attorney Survey results both graphically and in tables. Graphs: The graphs visually display the average numerical grade for each of the A through F scaled questions (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and F = 0) for the report-judge compared to the average grade for all county judges in the 2009 Interim Survey. Overall averages for each of the five performance components1 and the total overall average for all grade-scale questions are also graphed for the report-judge and all county judges. In addition to the grade-scale graphs, the questions regarding bias in favor the prosecution or defense, sentencing (non-attorney survey only) and the retention question are also graphed. Tables: This section shows the same information as in the graphs in tabular form plus the percentage distribution of grades and response categories for each question. For comparison purposes, the next four pages—two for the Attorney Survey and two for the Non-attorney Survey—show the combined percentage distribution of grades and grade averages for all county judges. The overall averages shown in the graphs and tables are calculated by summing the average grade for each question and dividing by the number of questions summed. This gives each question equal weight in computing the overall averages. The sample size for each survey is shown at the beginning of both the Attorney Survey section and the Non-attorney Survey section and on each of the tables. This is the number of respondents who answered most or all of the questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted, however, that the number of responses for individual questions can vary from the overall sample size. For example, question 2d and the question about prosecution/defense bias in the Attorney Survey were only asked of attorneys who had observed the judge in a criminal case—approximately two-thirds of attorneys surveyed. Similarly, questions 6 and 7 in the Non-Attorney Survey were asked only of respondents acquainted with the judge’s performance in criminal cases. 1 The five performance components measured in the Attorney questionnaire were Case Management, Application and K knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor and Diligence, and in the Non-attorney questionnaire the components were Demeanor, Fairness, Communications, Diligence and Application of Law. 2009 Colorado Interim Judicial Performance Survey 20 ## Page 24 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2909 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 19% 6% 2% 1% 24% 3.48 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 25% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.36 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 55% 23% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.35 Overall Case Management 3.40 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 52% 26% 10% 5% 2% 4% 3.25 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 49% 26% 12% 6% 3% 4% 3.15 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 33% 18% 11% 7% 4% 27% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 43% 24% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.20 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 65% 22% 8% 2% 1% 2% 3.49 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 29% 3.23 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.36 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 63% 22% 9% 4% 3% 1% 3.40 4b. Treating parties with respect. 64% 19% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.37 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 57% 20% 11% 7% 4% 1% 3.20 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.22 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 52% 23% 10% 6% 3% 6% 3.23 Overall Demeanor 3.30 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 50% 26% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 49% 24% 10% 5% 3% 10% 3.23 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 50% 18% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.35 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.25 Overall Average Grade: 3.28 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 21 ## Page 25 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2909 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 30% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 7% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know/not sure 5% 8. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 70% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 7% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 86% Total Not Retain 14% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 66% Somewhat recommend retain in office 16% Somewhat recommend retain in office 15% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 5% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 6% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 97% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 22 ## Page 26 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 11374 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.52 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.53 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 70% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.47 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 65% 18% 6% 3% 5% 2% 3.39 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.48 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 72% 15% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.53 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 69% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.43 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 50% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.42 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 69% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.52 Overall Fairness 3.48 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 73% 16% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.58 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 73% 17% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.61 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 76% 16% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.65 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.61 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 60% 22% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3.36 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 74% 16% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.62 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 60% 17% 6% 2% 2% 13% 3.50 4d.Being prepared for cases. 67% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.54 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.43 time. Overall Diligence 3.49 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 62% 17% 6% 3% 4% 7% 3.41 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 57% 13% 5% 3% 4% 18% 3.43 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 64% 16% 5% 3% 5% 8% 3.42 Overall Application of Law 3.42 Overall Average Grade: 3.49 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 23 ## Page 27 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 11374 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 77% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.15 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 16% Competely neutral 73% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.15 10. Retain percentage without undecideds. [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 81% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 7% Total Retain 90% Total Not Retain 10% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain in office 74% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% Undecided or dont know enough to make recommendation 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2009 Interim Judicial Performance Survey 24 ## Page 28 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 29 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 30 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 31 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 32 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page
  • 2010 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 30, 2010 The Honorable Jonathan L. Walker El Paso County Judicial Complex P.O. Box 2980 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Dear Judge Walker: I am pleased to make available to you the attached copy of your 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report. The report is based on two surveys relating to how you are seen carrying out the performance of your office: One of attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance, and second a survey of non-attorneys who have observed your performance in court or who have otherwise been affected by your performance of a judge. The methodology underlying these surveys has changed somewhat since the last reports were issued in 2009. A few minutes perusing the methodology section toward the end of this report should inform you of the relevant changes, and provide you with a methodological context to better interpret your survey results. In addition to this introduction, the report is divided into five main sections: A brief summary of the results of the two surveys. 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 at the back of this report. The numerical results of the survey of non-attorneys in both tabular and graphical form. In addition to the numerical results, this section also contains comments these respondent made on the subject of your judicial performance. In few instances the comments have been redacted to eliminate respondent identifying information. A copy of the non-attorney questionnaire is at the back of this report. The fourth section of the Report discusses the methodology of the surveys. The final section provides copies of the questions or questionnaires that were used for each survey. 100 Arap ahoe, Suite One, Boulder, CO 80302 Phone 303.443.5300 Fax 303.200.7385 ## Page 3 Hon. Jonathan L. Walker March 30, 2010 Page 2 If you have any questions about the methodology and how the survey was conducted, please feel free to contact me at 303-443-5300 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: ## Page 4 SSuummmmaarryy ooff RReessuullttss Attorneys assigned Judge Jonathan L. Walker an overall average grade1 of 3.40, and non- attorneys assigned Judge Walker an overall average grade of 3.71 resulting in a combined grade of 3.56. The average combined grade for all county judges, including those not eligible to stand for retention in 2010, was 3.41. The combined average grade is computed as the total of the overall average from the attorney survey plus the overall average from the non-attorney survey, divided by two. Judge Walker Average Grade Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.56 3.40 3.71 Sample Size - 39 162 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008 and 2009. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Walker’s overall average grades for each of these years. Judge Walker Average Grades by Year Combined Overall Attorney Overall Non-Attny Overall Average Score2 Average Score Average Score 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 Overall Grade 3.69 3.44 3.53 3.28 3.67 3.84 3.60 Sample Size - - - 0 14 25 57 53 52 Table 2 1 The overall average grade for the attorney and non-attorney surveys are computed by summing the average grade for each A through F question and dividing by the number of questions. See the tables in each of the survey sections. 2 County judges who were appointed between 2007 and 2009 will not have sample for the years prior to their appointment. In the tables for those years with no sample, the sample size will be shown as 0, and the overall average cells will be blank. This will also be true for a few judges who had no attorney sample even though they were on the bench that year. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1 ## Page 5 Due to sending questionnaires to all jurors—not just a sample—and their much higher response rate than other non-attorneys surveyed, the percentage of jurors in the county judge sample of the non-attorney survey is 47%. Moreover, jurors tend to grade judges much higher than non-jurors. The average juror overall average grade for county judges was 3.82, while the overall average grade awarded by non-jurors was 3.26. The effect of this is that judges with a higher percentage of jurors in their sample tend to have higher average grades in the non-attorney survey than those judges with a small percentage of jurors. The number of jurors in a judge’s sample is, of course, closely related to the number of jury trials the judge presides over. The table below shows Judge Walker’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all county Judge Walker Average Grade by Juror/Non-juror Jurors Non-Jurors Overall Grade 3.89 3.46 Percent of Sample 54% 46% Sample Size 87 75 County Judge Average 3.82 3.26 Table 3 judges. Table 3 allows one to compare Judge Walker’s juror and non-juror grades with the all county judge averages to better ascertain if the judge is seen as performing relatively well or relatively poorly among these two subgroups. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3399)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 39 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 59% 5% 8% 3% 0% 26% 3.62 3.49 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 59% 21% 10% 5% 5% 0% 3.23 3.43 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 69% 8% 8% 5% 0% 10% 3.57 3.37 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 18% 5% 0% 3% 3% 3.61 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.51 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 23% 3% 13% 3% 0% 3.23 3.26 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 54% 21% 8% 15% 3% 0% 3.08 3.13 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 51% 10% 5% 5% 5% 23% 3.27 3.04 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 56% 22% 0% 8% 3% 11% 3.34 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.23 3.17 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 85% 5% 5% 0% 3% 3% 3.74 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 55% 8% 8% 3% 0% 26% 3.57 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.66 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 23% 3% 0% 5% 0% 3.51 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 82% 10% 8% 0% 0% 0% 3.74 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 62% 10% 8% 13% 8% 0% 3.05 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 62% 13% 5% 10% 8% 3% 3.13 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.36 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 56% 15% 8% 10% 8% 3% 3.05 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 62% 13% 10% 3% 5% 8% 3.33 3.26 his/her cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 67% 8% 10% 0% 3% 13% 3.56 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.40 3.31 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges Sample Size = 39 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 6% 29% Completely neutral 51% 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 17% 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 14% 2% Don't know or not sure 11% 5% 8. 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 76% 71% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 14% 7% Total Retain 84% 87% Total Not Retain 17% 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 72% 67% Somewhat recommend retain 8% 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% 6% Strongly recommend not retain 13% 7% Total Retain 80% 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% 5% Total Not Retain 16% 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 5 ## Page 9 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.40 Overall Average Grade 3.31 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.51 3.42 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.62 case after trial. 3.49 1b. Maintainingappropriate control over 3.23 proceedings. 3.43 3.57 1c. Promptlyruling on pre-trial motions. 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.61 3.37 3.23 Q2. OverallApp & Knowledge of Law 3.17 2a. Beingable to identify and analyze 3.23 relevant facts. 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and argument. 3.08 3.13 3.27 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 3.04 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistant sentences 3.34 whencircumstances are simmilar. 3.24 3.66 Q3. Overall Communication 3.38 3a.Making sure all participants understand 3.74 the proceedings. 3.52 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.57 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 3.24 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges Jud 20g10e J uJdicoianl Paertfohrmaannce LSu.r vWey Raelpkorter 6 ## Page 10 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.36 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.32 3.51 4a. Giving proceedingsa sense of dignity. 3.42 3.74 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.38 4c. Conducting [his/her] courtroom 3.05 in a neutral manner. 3.23 3.13 4d. Consistanly applyinglaws and rules. 3.24 3.31 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.27 5a. Using good judgement in application of 3.05 releveant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.33 being prepared for [his/her] cases. 3.26 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.56 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.37 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 6% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% 51% Completely Neutral 48% 17% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% 14% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 11% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 7 ## Page 11 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q8. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 76% Strongly recommend retain 71% 8% Somewhat recommend retain 16% All Cnty Judge Walker Judges 3% Total Retain 84% 87% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 17% 13% 6% 14% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 72% Strongly recommend retain 67% 8% Somewhat recommend retain 15% All Cnty 5% Judge Walker Judges Undecided or DK 5% Total Retain 80% 82% Undecided or DK 5% 5% 3% Somewhat recommend not retain Total Not Retain 16% 13% 6% 13% Strongly recommend not retain 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 8 ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee JJoonnaatthhaann LL.. WWaallkkeerr ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 116622)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Sample Size = 162 A B C D Fail DK/NA Walker Judges 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 12% 3% 1% 1% 4% 3.75 3.54 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 11% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3.76 3.55 1c. Conducting court in a neutral manner. 77% 11% 5% 2% 0% 4% 3.70 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 73% 17% 3% 1% 2% 4% 3.64 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.71 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 80% 10% 4% 2% 0% 4% 3.74 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 76% 12% 2% 3% 2% 4% 3.65 3.46 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 8% 3% 1% 1% 34% 3.69 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 11% 4% 1% 0% 7% 3.75 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.71 3.51 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 10% 3% 1% 0% 4% 3.81 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 83% 12% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3.81 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 85% 9% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3.83 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.82 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time 61% 24% 3% 3% 1% 8% 3.54 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 79% 13% 2% 1% 1% 4% 3.77 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 63% 16% 6% 0% 1% 14% 3.62 3.52 4d. Being prepared for cases. 73% 13% 2% 2% 1% 9% 3.72 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 67% 19% 4% 1% 1% 8% 3.61 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.65 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 67% 14% 4% 2% 0% 13% 3.68 3.44 5b. Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 59% 15% 3% 1% 0% 21% 3.68 3.47 outside pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 70% 14% 3% 2% 1% 11% 3.69 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.68 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.71 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 10 ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Percentage Judge Jonathan L. Walker Jonathan L. All County Walker Judges Sample Size = 162 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 7% 14% Competely neutral 85% 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 9% 8% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average -0.03 0.14 negative average indicates a bias toward the defense.] 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 5% 13% Competely neutral 82% 74% Lenient sentencing total 11% 12% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.21 0.11 negative average indicates sentences are lenient.] 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 84% 82% Somewhat recommend retain 11% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 95% 91% Total Not Retain 4% 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 79% 75% Somewhat recommend retain 11% 8% Undecided or Don't Know 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 0% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 6% Total Retain 90% 83% Undecided/Don't Know 7% 9% Total Not Retain 4% 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 11 ## Page 15 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.71 Overall Average Grade 3.52 3.71 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.50 3.75 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.54 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.76 3.55 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.70 manner. 3.50 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.64 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.42 3.71 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.51 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.74 heard. 3.55 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.65 case without bias. 3.46 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.46 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.75 or her case. 3.55 3.82 Q3. Overall Communtications 3.63 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.81 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.60 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.81 understand. 3.63 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.83 can hear what's being said. 3.66 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges Ju d20g10e Ju dJicoialn Pearftorhmaannce SLu.rv eWy Raeplokrter 12 ## Page 16 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average Grades 3.65 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.51 3.54 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.39 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.77 proceedings. 3.64 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.62 3.52 4d. Being prepared for his or her cases. 3.72 3.56 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.61 little wasted time. 3.45 3.68 Q5. Overall Legal Ability 3.45 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.68 3.44 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.68 possible outside pressure. 3.47 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.69 relevant facts. 3.45 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. -0.03 Jonathan L. Walker 0.14 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Defense Prosecution Q7 Lenience or Harshness in Sentencing. -0.21 Jonathan L. Walker 0.11 All County Judges -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5   Lenient Harsh Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 13 ## Page 17 Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges Judge Jonathan L. Walker Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Q10. How strongly do you recommend that Judge Walker be retained or not retained in office? Excluding Undecided Respondents 84% Strongly recommend retain in office 82% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 9% All Cnty Judge Walker Judges Total Retain 95% 91% 0% Somewhat recommend not retain in office Total Not Retain 4% 9% 3% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including Undecided Respondents 79% Strongly recommend retain in office 75% 11% Somewhat recommend retain in office 8% 7% All Cnty Undecided 9% Judge Walker Judges Total Retain 90% 83% 0% Undecided 7% 9% Somewhat recommend not retain in office 3% Total Not Retain 4% 9% 4% Strongly recommend not retain in office 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Jonathan L. Walker All County Judges 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 14 ## Page 18 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on two surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges and the Survey of Non- Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology of the two surveys. I Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of people who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District Additional information was provided by the State Public Defender’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office, 15th Judicial District. The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. i. Prior to 2009, the survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges was conducted using paper questionnaires mailed to the attorneys’ offices. A sample of attorneys drawn from the case data were assigned to evaluate judges subject to the following rules applied in the order shown. 1. No attorney would be asked to evaluate the same judge in a 24 month period. 2. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were several judges the attorney could potentially evaluate, the attorney was assigned the judge with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judge with the smallest sample in order to even out sample sizes among judges. 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 survey after the second request were then telephoned and asked to complete the survey by phone. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 16 ## Page 20 ii. In 2009 the Attorneys Regarding Trial 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 five trial judges, and with the exception of the effects of the modified assignment rules 1 through 3 below, it became a survey of all attorneys who had cases before trial judges. Allowing an attorney to evaluate up to five 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. If an attorney was eligible to evaluate both a trial judge and an appellate judge, the attorney was assigned to evaluate the appellate judge. 3. If there were more than five judges who could be assigned to the attorney, the attorney was assigned the judges with whom he or she had had the most cases during the sampling time frame, or the judges with the smallest samples in order to even out sample sizes among judges. 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 could be asked to evaluate a combination of up to seven trial judges or Court of Appeals judges, if the attorney had had a case before the COA. Attorneys who had cases before the both the Supreme Court and trial judges during the sample time frame were asked to evaluate all seven Supreme Court justices, and not asked to evaluate the trial judges. The results shown in the 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report for the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges survey are based on the combined data collected from January 2005 through early February 2010 1 for those questions that have been consistently asked during that time period. Starting in 2010, the Judicial Performance Survey reports are based on a moving average, or rolling sample, of data collected over a period of time equal to the justice’s or judge’s term of office: ten years for a Supreme Court justice, eight years for a COA judge, six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results 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 2010 reports. 1 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17 ## Page 21 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. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. c. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, 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. d. Analysis: The Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” 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 county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 18 ## Page 22 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 county 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 Trial 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 Trial Judges Survey is calculated as the number of completed survey-evaluations divided by the number of possible evaluations. 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. From 2005 to 2010 a total of 7,796 attorneys were asked to participate in the Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey and on average to evaluate 4.3 judges each—a total of 33,257 potential attorney evaluations. A total of 4,986 attorneys responded (64.0%) with one or more survey evaluations, and the average number of judges evaluated per attorney was 2.5 . II Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges a. Sample: Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy received case data with the names of non-attorneys who had likely been in each judge’s courtroom from five primary sources: Colorado Judicial Department, Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Denver County Courts District Attorney’s Office, Second Judicial District (Denver) District Attorney’s Office, Ninth Judicial District The data from these different data sources are combined, duplicates removed and addresses corrected. In addition to non-attorneys who had likely been in the judge’s courtroom, names of court employees, including probation officers, were added to the non-attorney sample. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 19 ## Page 23 Depending on the number of names available to be sampled for each judge, a random sample was drawn if the quantity of potential respondents was large. On the other hand, if the count of possible respondents was small, all potential respondents were included in the sample. Where a person had been in more than one judge’s courtroom, the selection criteria for which judge he or she would be sent a questionnaire was generally for the judge in whose courtroom the potential respondent had been in most often. Each person whose name was sampled for the Non-Attorney Survey was mailed an initial postcard informing the recipient that he or she would be receiving a questionnaire. Two to three weeks after the post card was mailed, the potential respondent was sent a personalized introductory letter and a questionnaire with a postage-paid return envelope. If the person did not respond, a second questionnaire and letter were sent approximately four weeks later. Questionnaires are barcoded, and if a respondent mailed back two questionnaires, the second one was deleted from the data file. Starting in 2010, non-attorney section of 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 judge’s term of office: six years for a district judge and four years for a county judge. To use a district judge as an example: as survey data is collected it is pooled together for six years. After six years, as new data is added to the judge’s survey results 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 2010 reports. 2 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. Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the justice or judge be retained or not retained in office. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the last section of this report. 2 The State Commission on Judicial Performance authorized continuous surveying in 2007. Prior to 2007 data was only collected in the odd numbered years before the retention reports were issued. Therefore, while data was gathered in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and used in this report, there was no data collected in 2006. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 20 ## Page 24 c. Analysis: The Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section first shows a table of the percentage distribution for each of the A through F questions, including “don’t know” 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 county judges—including judges who are not eligible to stand for retention in 2010—and are shown in the furthest right column on the page. Tables showing the percentage distribution for all questions for all county judges are located at the end of this methodology section. The overall question averages are calculated by adding up the averages for each question and dividing by the number of questions. The next table shows the percentage distribution of the responses to the questions about prosecution or defense bias and recommending retention. The first column of percentages is for the report-judge and the second column displays the percentages for all county judges. The percentages for the retention question are shown including and excluding “don’t know/undecided” responses. The next page displays the question averages in horizontal bar-graph form. The percentage distribution of the prosecution-defense bias and retention questions are then presented in the graph on the next page. The third part of the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges section of the report lists the comments the attorney made about the judge’s strengths and weaknesses. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, non-attorney respondents were asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and what they considered to be the judge’s weaknesses. By statute these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. Before being given to the judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. Since 2005 there have been changes to the number of comment questions, 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 21 ## Page 25 e. Cooperation Rate: The estimated cooperation rate for the Non-attorney Survey is calculated as the number of completed questionnaires divided by the number of eligible respondents who actually received a questionnaire. The following table shows the total number of questionnaires mailed, completed, non-responses and refusals, undeliverables and other responses. The table presents the estimated overall cooperation rate as well as the cooperation rate by the different types of respondents. The true cooperation rates are likely higher than shown because of the percentage of people who were mailed questionnaires about judges who they had not observed. This is due, in part, to many cases being disposed of without the parties having appeared in court, as well as in the case of law enforcement, the data includes all those who were subpoenaed for a case, not just those who appeared. A table of the response counts by respondent type for Judge Walker is shown below, and on the next page is a table of the overall cooperation rates for both the attorney and non-attorney regarding trial judges surveys for all county judges. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 22 ## Page 26 Judge Jonathan L. Walker Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 23 17 0 0 6 26.1% Defense Attorneys 95 64 1 0 30 31.9% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 9 6 1 0 2 25.0% Other Attorneys Civil 8 7 0 0 1 12.5% Total Attorneys 136 95 2 0 39 29.1% Non-attorneys Criminal Witness 114 68 30 7 9 10.7% Other 73 44 22 0 7 13.7% Law Enforcement 133 73 40 5 15 16.1% Defendant 362 181 144 3 34 15.6% Civil Litigant 86 54 24 0 8 12.9% Jurors 170 73 9 1 87 54.0% Employees 3 1 0 0 2 66.7% Total Non-attorneys 941 494 269 16 162 24.1% Grand Total: 1077 589 271 16 201 24.9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All County Judges Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable responses Completes Rate Attorney Evaluations Criminal District Attorneys 1275 876 39 2 358 29.0% Defense Attorneys 5161 3380 119 9 1653 32.8% Other Attorneys Crmnl 24 10 6 0 8 44.4% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 1440 812 73 2 553 40.5% Other Attorneys Civil 660 431 36 1 192 30.8% Attorneys, Unknown Role 26 9 6 0 11 55.0% Total Attorneys 8586 5518 279 14 2775 33.4% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 4952 2734 1069 81 1068 28.1% Defendant 26197 14235 9044 287 2631 15.6% Victim 238 163 68 4 3 1.8% Witness 2737 1497 815 111 314 17.3% Other 1604 976 436 17 175 15.2% Civil Litigant 7606 4092 1996 111 1407 25.6% Witness 413 247 78 7 81 24.7% Other 104 74 17 0 13 14.9% Total Non-attorneys 43851 24018 13523 618 5692 18.8% Others Appellate Judges 29 2 0 0 27 93.1% Jurors 10350 4609 590 201 4950 51.8% Employees 277 119 36 29 93 43.9% Total Other 10627 4728 626 230 5043 50.4% Total 63064 34264 14428 862 13510 27.8% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 24 ## Page 28 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. None of the two surveys that make up this report, Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, and the Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, are 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 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. 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 2775 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Case Management: 1a.Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 49% 18% 6% 2% 1% 25% 3.49 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 61% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.43 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 45% 21% 8% 3% 1% 22% 3.37 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 56% 24% 9% 4% 2% 6% 3.37 Overall Case Management 3.42 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 53% 25% 11% 5% 2% 4% 3.26 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 46% 23% 12% 6% 4% 9% 3.13 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 38% 19% 10% 6% 4% 23% 3.04 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 23% 9% 4% 3% 17% 3.24 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.17 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 66% 21% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.52 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 39% 18% 8% 4% 2% 28% 3.24 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.38 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 64% 21% 8% 3% 3% 1% 3.42 4b. Treating parties with respect. 65% 18% 8% 5% 3% 1% 3.38 4c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 58% 20% 10% 7% 4% 1% 3.23 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 3% 6% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.32 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 24% 11% 6% 4% 4% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary homework and being prepared for 50% 23% 10% 4% 3% 10% 3.26 his/her cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 51% 17% 8% 3% 2% 19% 3.37 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.27 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 2775 Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 29% Completely neutral 48% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 6% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% Don't know or not sure 5% 8. 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 71% Somewhat recommend retain 16% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 87% Total Not Retain 13% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 67% Somewhat recommend retain 15% Undecided or Don't Know 5% Somewhat recommend not retain 6% Strongly recommend not retain 7% Total Retain 82% Undecided/Don't Know 5% Total Not Retain 13% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All County Judges Average Sample Size = 10735 A B C D Fail DK/NA Grade 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 70% 19% 6% 2% 2% 1% 3.54 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 74% 15% 5% 3% 3% 1% 3.55 1c.Conducting court in a neutral manner. 71% 16% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3.50 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 66% 18% 6% 3% 4% 2% 3.42 for those who appear before the court. Overall Demeanor 3.50 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 73% 16% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3.55 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 15% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3.46 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 11% 4% 2% 4% 28% 3.46 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 70% 15% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3.55 Overall Fairness 3.51 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 15% 5% 2% 2% 1% 3.60 what is going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 74% 17% 5% 1% 1% 1% 3.63 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 77% 15% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.66 what is being said. Overall Communications 3.63 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time 61% 22% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3.39 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.64 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 61% 17% 5% 2% 2% 13% 3.52 4d.Being prepared for cases. 68% 16% 5% 2% 2% 7% 3.56 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 64% 21% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3.45 time. Overall Diligence 3.51 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 63% 17% 6% 3% 3% 8% 3.44 5b.Willing to make decisions without regard to possible 58% 13% 4% 2% 4% 18% 3.47 outside pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 65% 15% 5% 3% 4% 8% 3.45 Overall Application of Law 3.45 Overall Average Grade: 3.52 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Average All County Judges Grade Sample Size = 10735 6. How biased do you think the Judge is toward the defense or prosecution? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 14% Competely neutral 78% Biased in favor of the defense total 8% Average 0.14 7. How lenient or harsh do you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge are? [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Harsh sentencing total 13% Competely neutral 74% Lenient sentencing total 12% Average 0.11 10. How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained or not retained in office? [Percentages excluding undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 82% Somewhat recommend retain 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 91% Total Not Retain 9% [Percentages including undecided responses.] Strongly recommend retain 75% Somewhat recommend retain 8% Undecided or Don't Know 9% Somewhat recommend not retain 3% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 83% Undecided/Don't Know 9% Total Not Retain 9% 2010 Judicial Performance Survey Report 29 ## Page 33 QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreess ## Page 34 Colorado Judicial Performance Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges Survey Questions _ Which of the following types of cases have you observed Judge (Last Name)’s performance? Please circle all that apply. (Only respondents who indicate they have observed the judge in “criminal other than traffic” cases will be asked question 2c and question 6.) Civil . 1 Criminal other than traffic . 2 Traffic . 3 Domestic . 4 Juvenile . 5 Probate . 6 Other . 9 1. Case Management: a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. A B C D F DK/NS b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. A B C D F DK/NS d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. A B C D F DK/NS 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. A B C D F DK/NS b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. A B C D F DK/NS c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. A B C D F DK/NS d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are similar. A B C D F DK/NS 3. Communications: a. Makings sure all participants understand the proceedings. A B C D F DK/NS b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well reasoned. A B C D F DK/NS 4. Demeanor: a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. A B C D F DK/NS b. Treating participants with respect. A B C D F DK/NS c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. A B C D F DK/NS d. Consistently applying laws and rules. A B C D F DK/NS 5. Diligence: a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and rules. A B C D F DK/NS b. Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared for his/her cases. A B C D F DK/NS c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time consuming. A B C D F DK/NS 1 ## Page 35 Having observed Judge (Last Name) in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: (This question is asked only if respondent indicated at the beginning of the survey he/she observed the judge in a criminal case.) Very biased in favor of the prosecution . 1 Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution . 2 Completely Neutral . 3 Somewhat biased in favor of the defense . 4 Very biased in favor of the defense . 5 Don’t Know/Not Sure . 9 6. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s strengths? _ _ _ 7. What would you say are Judge (Last Name)’s weaknesses? _ _ _ 8. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge (Last Name) be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he be retained in office . 5 Somewhat recommend he be retained in office . 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation . 3 Somewhat recommend he not be retained in office . 2 Strongly recommend he not be retained in office . 1 2 ## Page 36 9. And what would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s weaknesses? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Commission on Judicial Performance ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Evaluation of 10. Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how JUDGE [FULL NAME] strongly do you recommend that Judge [Last Name] be retained in office, or not retained in office? Strongly recommend he/she be retained in office ................................ 5 Somewhat recommend he/she be retained in office ............................ 4 Undecided or don’t know enough to make recommendation ............. 3 If we have made a mistake and you either were not in Judge [Last Somewhat recommend he/she not be retained in office ..................... 2 Name]’s courtroom in the past 18 months, or you feel that you do not Strongly recommend he/she not be retained in office ......................... 1 have sufficient experience with Judge [Last Name] to have an opinion the judge’s judicial performance, please just return this questionnaire, unanswered, in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, to stop any further requests to evaluate Judge [Last Name]. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please place it in the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided and place it in the mail. Your participation in this survey is very much appreciated. Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. (If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please circle the number corresponding to “Don’t Know/Not Applicable”—DK/NA). DK 1. Demeanor: A B C D F N/A a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 4 3 2 1 0 9 b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before him/her. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ## Page 37 DK 6. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or 2. Fairness: A B C D F N/A cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how biased you think Judge [Last Name] is toward the defense or c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 4 3 2 1 0 9 the prosecution. If you feel Judge [Last Name] is completely unbiased, circle “0.” d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Bias toward Completely Bias toward Defense Neutral Prosecution DK 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Communications: A B C D F N/A a. Makings sure participants understand the 7. [If you were in [Last Name]’s courtroom during a criminal case or proceedings, and what’s going on in the cases please answer this question, otherwise skip to the next courtroom. 4 3 2 1 0 9 question.] On the scale below, please indicate by circling the appropriate b. Using language that everyone can understand. 4 3 2 1 0 9 number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom down by [Last Name] are. If you feel Judge [Last Name] generally hands can hear what’s being said. 4 3 2 1 0 9 down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” DK Sentences Appropriate Sentences 4. Diligence: A B C D F N/A Too Light Sentences Too Harsh a. Beginning court on time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 d. Being prepared for his/her cases. 4 3 2 1 0 9 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because the judge will e. Managing court proceedings so that there is see a typed transcript of the comments that you and others write, it is important that little wasted time. 4 3 2 1 0 9 you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. 8. What would you say are Judge [Last Name]’s strengths? DK ___________________________________________________________ 5. Application of Law: A B C D F N/A ___________________________________________________________ a. Giving reasons for rulings. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ b. Willing to make decision without regard to ___________________________________________________________ possible outside pressure. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 4 3 2 1 0 9 ___________________________________________________________ Continued on Back Page

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

• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2010 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026