Craig Welling

Evaluation history

• 2020 retention cycle

  Court of Appeals

  Commission vote: 11 for · 0 against

  Meets Standards
  VotersRetained· 70.1% yes

  1,851,374 yes · 790,501 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Craig R. Welling MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, by a vote of 11-0.  The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Judge Welling has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals for a little over three years and this is his first retention evaluation as a court of appeals judge.  Some survey comments were critical of Judge Welling’s courtroom demeanor and communication style.  From our observations at hearings, however, the Commission finds Judge Welling’s demeanor is professional and respectful.  His questions demonstrate advanced preparation and detailed knowledge of the case.  The Commission finds that Judge Welling’s written opinions, although somewhat lengthy, provide clear and detailed explanations of his decisions and reasoning.  The Commission commends Judge Welling’s commitment to seeking out ways to continually improve on his judicial processes, as demonstrated by his survey scores on issuing timely opinions, which significantly improved since his interim evaluation.  The Commission believes that Judge Welling is a valuable addition to the Colorado Court of Appeals. To conduct our evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Welling, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges.  One survey question asked whether Judge Welling met judicial performance standards.  Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 84% answered yes and 16% answered no.  Of the judges who responded to that question, 98% answered yes and 2% answered no.  A total of 32 attorneys and 63 judges responded to the survey.
• 2014 retention cycle

  Trial Court · Adams · Adams

  Meets Standards(Retain)
  VotersRetained· 65.1% yes

  80,825 yes · 43,285 no50% needed to retain
  Retention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Retain Reports: 2014 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) Need an accessible PDF Document Version? Please click on the link below and email our staff Contact Us The Seventeenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Craig Welling BE RETAINED. Judge Welling, a District Court Judge for the Seventeenth Judicial District, was appointed to the bench in 2010, and sworn in as a District Court Judge in 2011. Since that time, Judge Welling has presided over domestic relations, juvenile, civil and appellate (municipal court and county court appeal) cases.  For the last year, Judge Welling’s work has been focused on juvenile and appellate cases.  In 2007, Judge Welling began serving as chief legal counsel for the administration of Governor Bill Ritter, who then appointed him district judge in 2010. Prior that that position, Judge Welling worked in private practice. Judge Welling received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University in 1995, his master's degree from Penn State University in 2001, and his Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado in 2001. In arriving at their recommendation, Commission members interviewed Judge Welling after reviewing survey results provided by lawyers, parties, and other individuals who appeared in front of Judge Welling or otherwise observed him in court.  The Commission members also reviewed Judge Welling’s self-evaluation, observed him in court, and reviewed a number of decisions rendered by the judge. During this election cycle, Judge Welling’s survey results from attorneys and non-attorneys revealed his ratings were above the statewide average among all district court judges standing for retention.  Of attorneys responding to the survey, 93% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 4% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 79% recommended to retain, 12% not to retain, and 10% made no recommendation regarding retention.  (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) Judge Welling keeps up to date on the law through reviewing appellate opinions from the Colorado Court of Appeals and Colorado Supreme Court each week, as well as through attending courses and conferences focusing on the types of cases his is presiding over.  Prior to serving as a District Court Judge, Judge Welling did not have experience in Domestic Relations or Juvenile Law.  To make up for the lack of prior experience, Judge Welling spent a great deal of time observing more seasoned judges in those areas, as well as studying those hard to understand areas of law.  Judge Welling acknowledged the importance of communicating in a clear and understandable fashion, especially in the Domestic Relations and Juvenile courtrooms. It is Judge Welling’s philosophy that clear and understandable communication allows those who appear in front of him to understand his decisions, and also helps them to gain information to better avoid negative court involvement in the future.  Based on its review of returned surveys, review of several of Judge Welling’s written decisions, courtroom observations, and an interview with Judge Welling, the Commission unanimously recommends that Judge Craig Welling BE RETAINED.

Surveys & reports

• 2020 cycle
  • 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full interim survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Craig Welling 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney .10 Methodology and How to Read Results .10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations .12 Methodology and How to Read Results .12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent .14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Welling, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.6 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Welling All Appellate Judges All Appellate Judge Welling Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.6 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 92% 91% 82% 80% 73% 60% 40% 27% 20% 11% 7% 6% 5% 3% 2% 0% Judge Welling All Appellate Judges Judge Welling All Appellate Judges Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges All All Judge Judge Appellate Appellate Welling Welling Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 73% 82% 91% 92% standards No, does not meet 27% 11% 6% 5% performance standards No opinion 0% 7% 3% 2% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 General 3.6 3.0 Writing 3.3 3.4 Judge Evaluation 3.6 Judge Welling All Appellate Judges All Judge Appellate Welling Judges General 3.5 3.6 Writing 3.0 3.3 Judge Evaluation 3.4 3.6 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 21 40% 52% 11 Judges 54 26% 61% 33 In addition to the responses above, Judge Welling received 0 responses via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Welling Overall 3.5 Appellate Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Welling Appellate Number of Responses Overall Judges Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.3 3.4 11 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.4 3.7 11 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.5 3.7 11 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.2 3.7 11 Not engaging in ex parte communications 3.9 4.0 9 Being prepared for oral argument 3.7 3.6 10 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Welling Overall 3 Appellate Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Welling Appellate Judges Number of Overall Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.2 3.4 10 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.3 3.3 10 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 2.6 3.4 10 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.2 3.5 10 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 2.9 3.2 10 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3 3.4 8 not be decided 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Welling Overall 3.4 Appellate Judges Overall 3.6 Judge Appellate Number of Welling Judges Responses Overall Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.5 3.6 31 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.4 3.6 31 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3 3.6 28 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 3.7 30 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.3 3.6 32 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.2 3.5 28 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.6 3.7 32 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.8 3.9 31 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Welling, 44 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 44responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates During the 2018 administration, a total of 16,364 survey invitations were sent to 5,769 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 2.8 judges. In total 3,837 surveys were completed with an additional 2,309 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 38% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 62%. b. Methodology The 2018 attorney survey was conducted in 4 quarterly cycles online beginning on June 4th, 2018. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first quarter of 2018 were first mailed a pre-notification letter on June 4th, 2018 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on June 7th, June 18th, and July 2nd, 2018. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the second quarter of 2018 beginning with a pre- notification letter sent on August 10th, 2018. The letter was followed up by email invitations sent on August 13th, August 27th, and September 11th, 2018. For those attorneys with appearances during the 3rd quarter of 2018, the process was repeated again with a letter sent on November 26th and a series of emails sent on November 29th, December 11th, and December 29th, 2018. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2019. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2018. This cycle included a pre-notification letter sent on January 25th followed up by email invitations sent on February 5th, February 11th, and February 19th, 2019. Additional invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 10 ## Page 11 c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2018 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving interim reports in 2019. All 179 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 15 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving interim reports for a total of 2,685 invitations sent. A total of 671 responses were received for a response rate of 25%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving interim reports in 2019. All 28 appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 15 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 405 survey invitations sent. A total of 147 responses were received for a response rate of 36%. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using Qualtrics 360 research software. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on February 1st, 2019 with reminders sent on February 6th and 19th. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 21st, 2019. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using Qualtrics 360 research software. A single email invitation was sent on February 6th, 2019. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 21st, 2019. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2018 administration with only minor changes to make the survey gender neutral. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 12 ## Page 13 Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 52 21 0 11 52% Judges 206 54 0 33 61% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2019 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 14
  • 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
    Read full retention survey textexpandcollapse

    ## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Craig Welling 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report Appellate Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 General Evaluation Questions . 7 Appellate Writing . 8 Inter-Judge Survey Questions . 9 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney . 10 Methodology and How to Read Results . 10 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations . 12 Methodology and How to Read Results . 12 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 14 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Welling, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.5 3 2 1 0 Judge Welling Judge Welling Overall Grade 3.5 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 98% 84% 80% 60% 40% 20% 16% 2% 0% Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Judges Yes, meets performance 84% 98% standards No, does not meet 16% 2% performance standards No opinion 0% 0% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 General 3.4 Writing 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 Judge Welling Judge Welling General 3.4 Writing 3.3 Inter-Judge Evaluation 3.6 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 141 30% 23% 32 Judges 63 29% - - In addition to the responses above, Judge Welling received 0 responses via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report General Evaluation Questions 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Welling Overall 3.4 Judge Welling Number of Responses Overall Being fair and impartial toward each side of 3.2 32 the case Allowing parties to present their arguments 3.1 29 and answer questions Treating parties equally regardless of race, 3.8 28 sex, or economic status Being courteous toward attorneys 3.3 31 Not engaging in ex parte communications 4.0 23 Being prepared for oral argument 3.8 26 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 7 ## Page 8 Appellate Writing 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Welling Overall 3.3 Judge Welling Number of Overall Responses Writing opinions that are clear 3.5 26 Writing opinions that adequately explain the 3.3 26 basis of the Court's decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.5 30 Making decisions without regard to possible 3.4 26 criticism Making reasoned decisions based upon the 3.1 30 law and facts Refraining from reaching issues that need 3.2 27 not be decided 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 8 ## Page 9 Inter-Judge Survey Questions 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Welling Overall 3.6 Judge Number of Welling Responses Overall Writing opinions that are clear 3.6 44 Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the Court's 3.6 44 decision Issuing opinions in a timely manner 3.5 41 Making decisions without regard to possible criticism 3.8 41 Making reasoned decisions based upon the law and facts 3.5 44 Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided 3.6 43 Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case 3.7 43 Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex, or economic status 3.7 42 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 9 ## Page 10 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Welling, 32 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 32responses. The survey results are divided into five sections: Performance, General Evaluation, Appellate Writing, Strengths and Weaknesses a. Response rates During the 2020 administration, a total of 57,819 survey invitations were sent to 9,958 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 5.8 judges. In total 10,433 surveys were completed with an additional 6,536 responses where the attorney indicated that they did not have enough experience with the judge to be comfortable evaluating him or her. The response rate for the survey was 18% and the survey completion rate (the number of those familiar enough to evaluate the judge divided by the total number of attorney responses including those indicating they did not have sufficient familiarity to evaluate the judge) was 29%. b. Methodology The 2020 attorney survey was conducted in 3 cycles online beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Attorneys with appearances in front of judges during the first and second quarters of 2019 were sent a series of email invitations beginning on August 22nd, 2019. Reminders were sent on September 24th and October 9th, 2019. This process was repeated among attorneys with appearances in the third quarter of 2019 with email invitations sent beginning November 25th, 2019. Reminders were sent on December 4th and December 11th, 2019. To further increase the amount of data collected, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2020. Invitations were emailed to attorneys with appearances during the 4th quarter of 2020. This cycle included email invitations sent on January 29th, 2020. Reminders were sent on February 4th and 11th, 2020. A final email informing respondents of the cycle closing was sent on February 18th, 2020. invitations and reminders were sent out on request throughout the data collection process. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 10 ## Page 11 Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the final question on meeting performance standards. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with the exception noted above) will also be reported for each question along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question, i.e. the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the question on retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 11 ## Page 12 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology – Inter Judge Evaluations Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates This portion of data collection consisted of two parts. The first involved district judges being invited to evaluate the appellate judges and justices receiving retention reports in 2020. All 190 district judges were invited via email to evaluate each of the 4 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges receiving retention reports for a total of 760 invitations sent. A total of 250 responses were received for a response rate of 33%. The second phase of data collection was the inter-appellate evaluation where appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate their peers receiving retention reports in 2020. Appellate judges and justices were invited to evaluate all 5 of their peers receiving reports with the exception that no judge was invited to evaluate themselves for a total of 116 survey invitations sent. A total of [NUMRESP] responses were received for a response rate of [RR}. b. Methodology The evaluation of appellate judges and justices by district judges was conducted online using the Voxco research suite. Invitations were sent to district judges via email on January 27th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. The inter-appellate evaluation was also conducted online using online using the Voxco research suite. A single email invitation was sent on January 28th, 2020. The survey was closed and data was downloaded on February 20th, 2020. c. Questions In the core of the survey, appellate judges were rated on 8 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 12 ## Page 13 Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 13 ## Page 14 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 465 141 0 32 23% Judges 217 63 0 63 29% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they had sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Craig Welling 14
• 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 CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeelllliinngg 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Craig R. Welling Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Welling: 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. Craig R. Welling 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 Craig R. Welling received an overall combined average grade of 3.62 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.81, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.43, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.47 (not shown below). Judge Welling Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.62 3.81 3.43 Sample Size - 64 29 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2007, 2008, 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 Welling’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Welling Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.62 3.81 64 3.43 29 Overall 3.62 3.81 64 3.43 29 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 district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 is 3.87, while the overall average grade given by non-jurors is 3.30. 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 Welling’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges that are receiving an interim evaluation in 2013 (see two columns on far right). Judge Welling Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Welling Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.92 5 17% 3.33 24 83% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeeliinngg ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 6644)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Sample Size = 64 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 77% 14% 2% 3% 0% 5% 3.72 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 84% 14% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3.81 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 72% 13% 2% 0% 0% 14% 3.82 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 80% 16% 2% 2% 0% 2% 3.76 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.78 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 88% 9% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3.87 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 83% 11% 3% 0% 0% 3% 3.82 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 72% 9% 2% 0% 0% 17% 3.85 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.85 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 80% 17% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3.77 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 83% 13% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3.84 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.81 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 91% 6% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3.84 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 86% 6% 6% 0% 2% 0% 3.75 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 86% 11% 0% 0% 2% 2% 3.83 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 86% 9% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3.87 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.82 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 83% 13% 0% 2% 0% 3% 3.82 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 86% 8% 3% 2% 0% 2% 3.81 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 83% 6% 0% 2% 2% 8% 3.81 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.81 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.81 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 27% Completely neutral 0% 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% 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 89% 57% Recommend retain 8% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 2% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Total Retain 97% 81% Neither 2% 9% Total Not Retain 2% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 88% 57% Recommend retain 8% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 2% 9% Recommend not retain 0% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 2% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 2% 1% Total Retain 96% 81% Neither 2% 9% Total Not Retain 2% 11% Don't Know 2% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.81 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.78 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.72 case after trial. 3.39 3.81 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.82 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.76 3.29 3.85 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.87 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 3.82 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.85 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 0.00 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 3.81 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.77 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.84 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.82 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.84 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.75 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.83 neutral manner. 3.28 3.87 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.81 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.82 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.81 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.81 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 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 27% 0% Completely Neutral 47% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 7 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 11 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Welling be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 89% Strongly recommend retain 57% 8% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 2% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Welling Judges* Total Retain 97% 81% 0% Recommend not retain Neither 2% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 2% 11% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 88% Strongly recommend retain 57% 8% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 2% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Welling Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 96% 81% 5% Neither 2% 9% 2% Total Not Retain 2% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 2% 1% Don't know enough to make a 2% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 8 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 12 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeeliinngg ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 2299)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Sample Size = 29 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 11% 0% 4% 7% 4% 3.48 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 79% 0% 7% 4% 7% 4% 3.44 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 18% 0% 4% 14% 4% 3.11 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 68% 11% 7% 4% 11% 0% 3.21 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.31 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 66% 10% 7% 10% 7% 0% 3.17 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 66% 7% 7% 14% 7% 0% 3.10 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 48% 3% 0% 0% 3% 45% 3.69 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 10% 3% 3% 0% 7% 3.70 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.42 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 76% 17% 7% 0% 0% 0% 3.69 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 79% 7% 3% 0% 7% 3% 3.57 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 86% 3% 7% 0% 0% 3% 3.82 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.69 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 76% 14% 7% 0% 0% 3% 3.71 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 7% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3.68 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 17% 0% 0% 7% 14% 3.48 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 76% 7% 10% 7% 0% 0% 3.52 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 71% 18% 0% 0% 7% 4% 3.52 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.58 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 66% 7% 3% 7% 10% 7% 3.19 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 55% 14% 3% 3% 7% 17% 3.29 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 46% 7% 18% 7% 11% 11% 2.80 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.09 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.43 3.64 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 0% 9% Competely neutral 100% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.00 0.07 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 0% 9% Competely neutral 100% 81% Lenient sentencing total 0% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.00 0.05 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 59% 74% Recommend retain 15% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 11% 4% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 5% Total Retain 74% 89% Neither 11% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% 71% Recommend retain 14% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 11% 4% Recommend not retain 4% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 11% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% 4% Total Retain 71% 85% Neither 11% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 7% Don't Know 4% 4% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 11 ## Page 15 Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.43 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.31 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.48 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.44 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.11 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.21 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.42 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.17 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.10 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.69 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.70 or her case. 3.66 3.69 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.69 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.57 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.82 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.58 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.71 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.68 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.48 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.52 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.52 little wasted time. 3.57 3.09 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.19 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.29 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 2.80 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.00 Craig R. Welling 0.07 All District 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 0.00 Craig R. Welling 0.05 All District 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. Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 13 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 17 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Welling be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 59% Strongly recommend retain 74% 15% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 11% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Welling Judges* 4% Recommend not retain Total Retain 74% 89% 2% Neither 11% 4% Total Not Retain 15% 7% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 57% Strongly recommend retain 71% 14% Recommend retain 14% 11% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 4% Judge Welling Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 71% 85% Neither 11% 4% 11% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 15% 7% 5% Total DK 4% 4% Don't know enough to make a 4% recommendation 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District 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 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, 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 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 District 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 district 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 district 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 district 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 District 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 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, 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 District 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 district 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 district 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 district 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 District 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 rates. 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 Welling 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 district judges. 20 ## Page 24 Judge Craig R. Welling Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Civil Attorneys for Litigants 103 34 5 0 64 65.3% Total Attorneys 103 34 5 0 64 65.3% Non-attorneys Civil Litigant 150 98 30 2 20 16.7% Other 7 2 1 0 4 66.7% Jurors 7 1 0 1 5 71.4% Total Non-attorneys 164 101 31 3 29 21.8% Grand Total: 267 135 36 3 93 40.3% 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 District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3130 2013 120 1 996 33.1% Defense Attorneys 4130 2444 84 0 1602 39.6% Other Attorneys Criminal 248 125 13 0 110 46.8% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 4708 2028 213 2 2465 54.8% Other Attorneys Civil 4027 1956 366 2 1703 46.5% GAL 29 12 0 0 17 58.6% Total Attorneys 16272 8578 796 5 6893 44.5% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 109 66 23 5 15 17.4% Witness 5404 2746 1591 265 802 21.0% Other 832 471 248 10 103 17.6% Law Enforcement 4235 2320 1024 167 724 22.5% Defendant 20502 9362 9533 132 1475 13.4% Civil Litigant 12103 6801 2810 219 2273 24.5% Witness 498 251 99 15 133 33.3% Other 454 196 99 21 138 38.9% Jurors 17494 7070 1191 267 8966 55.0% Employees, including Interpreters 233 68 29 22 114 55.9% Probation Officers 116 42 4 8 62 55.4% Total Non-attorneys 61980 29393 16651 1131 14805 32.7% Grand Total: 78252 37971 17447 1136 21698 35.7% * Includes only the District 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 District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6893 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. 51% 20% 8% 3% 2% 18% 3.39 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.40 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 46% 25% 10% 4% 2% 13% 3.25 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 11% 5% 2% 2% 3.28 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 51% 24% 12% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 35% 19% 10% 6% 5% 25% 2.95 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 39% 26% 10% 5% 3% 17% 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 64% 23% 7% 2% 1% 2% 3.51 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 49% 23% 10% 4% 2% 12% 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 18% 7% 4% 4% 1% 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 61% 19% 10% 5% 4% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.18 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 56% 23% 9% 5% 3% 4% 3.30 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 17% 7% 3% 2% 15% 3.40 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.29 * Includes only the District 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 District 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 27% Completely neutral 47% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 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? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 57% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 9% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 1% Total Retain 81% Neither 9% Total Not Retain 11% Don't Know 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14805 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 78% 14% 4% 1% 2% 1% 3.68 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 81% 12% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.69 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 78% 13% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.62 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 79% 13% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3.65 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 77% 12% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3.61 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 51% 7% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.64 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 76% 13% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.64 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 12% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 80% 14% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 82% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 68% 21% 6% 2% 2% 2% 3.55 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 81% 12% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.73 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 69% 14% 4% 1% 2% 10% 3.63 4d.Being prepared for cases. 77% 12% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.68 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 18% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 70% 14% 4% 2% 3% 7% 3.57 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 10% 3% 2% 3% 18% 3.61 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 72% 11% 3% 2% 4% 8% 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.64 * Includes only the District 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 District 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 9% Competely neutral 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.07 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 9% Competely neutral 81% Lenient sentencing total 10% Average 0.05 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Excluding "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 74% Recommend retain 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Total Retain 89% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 71% Recommend retain 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 4% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% Total Retain 85% Neither 4% Total Not Retain 7% Don't Know 4% * Includes only the District 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 CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeelllliinngg 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 17th Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Craig R. Welling Adams County Justice Center 1100 Judicial Center Dr. Brighton, CO 80601 Dear Judge Welling: 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 three important stakeholder groups: 1) attorneys who have had cases in your court or who are knowledgeable about your judicial performance; 2) appellate judges; and 3) 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 six 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 appellate judges in tabular form, and any comments the justices and judges might have made about your judicial performance. 4. 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. 5. The fifth section of the report discusses the methodology of the surveys. 6. 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 Craig R. Welling received an overall combined average grade of 3.59 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.71, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.46, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Welling Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.59 3.71 3.46 Sample Size - 114 53 Table 1 The results presented in this report are based on data collected in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. (See Methodology section for description of sampling process.) Table 2 shows Judge Welling’s overall average grades for up to six years (for each year in which survey results are available.) Provisional judges will not have samples for the years prior to their appointment. Judge Welling Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2008 NA NA NA NA NA 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2010 NA NA NA NA NA 2011 NA NA NA NA NA 2012 3.62 3.81 64 3.43 29 2013 3.52 3.56 50 3.48 24 Overall 3.59 3.71 114 3.46 53 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 district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.80, 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 Welling’s non-attorney results broken out by jurors and non-jurors. It also shows the overall average juror and non-juror grades for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 (see two columns on far right). Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Welling Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.92 5 9% 3.41 48 91% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeeliinngg ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 144)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Sample Size = 114 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 72% 11% 4% 4% 2% 8% 3.60 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 76% 16% 1% 4% 2% 1% 3.62 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 68% 14% 2% 3% 0% 13% 3.70 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 74% 14% 4% 4% 1% 3% 3.62 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.64 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 84% 8% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3.78 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 79% 11% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3.68 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 62% 9% 6% 0% 1% 22% 3.68 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.71 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 74% 19% 4% 0% 2% 1% 3.65 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 79% 12% 4% 0% 0% 6% 3.80 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.73 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 10% 5% 2% 1% 1% 3.71 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 77% 11% 9% 1% 2% 1% 3.62 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 80% 12% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.72 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 81% 9% 5% 2% 0% 4% 3.74 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.70 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 79% 11% 6% 1% 0% 4% 3.73 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 82% 11% 4% 1% 0% 3% 3.79 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 85% 5% 2% 1% 1% 6% 3.84 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.79 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.71 3.30 * Includes only the District 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 District Judges Percentage Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 0% 27% Completely neutral 0% 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 0% 9% Very biased in favor of the defense 0% 2% Don't know or not sure 0% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 82% 56% Recommend retain 11% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 4% 8% Recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 1% 6% Total Retain 93% 80% Neither 4% 8% Total Not Retain 4% 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 4 ## Page 8 Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.71 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.64 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.60 case after trial. 3.44 3.62 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.70 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.62 3.28 3.71 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.78 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.68 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.68 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 0.00 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.73 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.65 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.80 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.70 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.71 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.62 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.72 neutral manner. 3.28 3.74 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.79 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.73 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.79 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.84 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 0% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 0% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 0% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 6 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Welling be retained or not retained in office? 82% Strongly recommend retain 56% 11% Recommend retain 24% 4% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Judge Welling Judges* Total Retain 93% 80% 3% Neither 4% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 4% 11% 1% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeeliinngg ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Craig R. Welling All District No Craig R. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Welling = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Welling Judge Welling in terms of overall performance as a judge. 31% 19% 0% 0% 0% 50% 3.63 3.46 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 9 ## Page 13 SSuurrvveeyy ooff NNoonn--AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CCrraaiigg RR.. WWeeliinngg ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 5533)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Sample Size = 53 A B C D Fail DK/NA Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 75% 13% 2% 2% 6% 2% 3.53 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 79% 8% 4% 2% 6% 2% 3.55 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 69% 12% 4% 4% 10% 2% 3.29 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 69% 10% 10% 4% 8% 0% 3.27 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.41 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 70% 11% 8% 6% 6% 0% 3.34 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 70% 6% 9% 8% 8% 0% 3.23 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 4% 2% 0% 4% 38% 3.64 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 75% 10% 6% 2% 4% 4% 3.56 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.44 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 71% 21% 6% 2% 0% 0% 3.62 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 68% 13% 9% 4% 4% 2% 3.40 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 89% 2% 6% 0% 0% 4% 3.86 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.63 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 66% 19% 8% 2% 0% 6% 3.58 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 75% 15% 0% 2% 4% 4% 3.63 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 62% 21% 0% 2% 6% 10% 3.45 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 73% 12% 10% 6% 0% 0% 3.52 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 63% 24% 6% 0% 6% 2% 3.40 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.52 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 10% 4% 6% 8% 4% 3.32 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 62% 13% 8% 2% 6% 10% 3.36 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 59% 8% 16% 4% 8% 6% 3.13 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.27 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.46 3.69 * Includes only the District 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 11 ## Page 15 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Percentage Judge Craig R. Welling Craig R. Welling All District Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 5% 8% Competely neutral 95% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 0% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.05 0.05 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% 8% Competely neutral 74% 82% Lenient sentencing total 21% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average -0.21 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 69% 75% Recommend retain 10% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 10% 6% Recommend not retain 2% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 10% 4% Total Retain 79% 88% Neither 10% 6% Total Not Retain 12% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.46 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.41 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.53 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.55 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.29 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.27 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.44 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.34 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.23 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.64 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.56 or her case. 3.70 3.63 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.62 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.40 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.86 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.52 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.58 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.63 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.45 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.52 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.40 little wasted time. 3.61 3.27 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.32 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.36 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.13 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.05 Craig R. Welling 0.05 All District 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 -0.21 Craig R. Welling 0.01 All District 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. Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 14 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 18 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Craig R. Welling Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Welling be retained or not retained in office? 69% Strongly recommend retain 75% 10% Recommend retain 13% 10% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 6% Judge Welling Judges* 2% Total Retain 79% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 10% 6% Total Not Retain 12% 6% 10% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Craig R. Welling All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 15 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 19 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy ## Page 20 MMeetthhooddoollooggyy The results shown in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report are based on three surveys: The Survey of Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges, the Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges, and the Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding Trial Judges. Below is a description of the methodology used in the three surveys. I Attorneys Regarding District 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 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, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 17 ## Page 21 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 District 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 district 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 district 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 district 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 District 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. 18 ## Page 22 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 Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges a. Sample: Twenty-seven appellate judges (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) were sent a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the district judges eligible to stand for retention in November 2014. b. Questions: The questionnaire consisted of one question about each district judge concerning overall performance (see Questionnaire section). The A through F responses were converted to a numerical scores where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0. c. Analysis: The Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges section shows a table of the percentage distribution for the one question, including “don’t know/not applicable” responses. The next column to the right shows the judge’s average grade for that question. For comparison purposes, the average grade was also computed for all district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014 and is shown in the furthest right column on the page. The second part of the Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges lists the judges’ and justices’ comments, if any. d. Comments: In addition to the A through F questions, the appellate judge respondents were given the opportunity to write a comment about each district judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the district 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 district judge and the Commission, an attempt is made to redact all respondent identifying information from the comments. An effort has been made to correct spelling and typographical errors. 19 ## Page 23 e. Cooperation Rate: In 2014, a questionnaire was sent to 27 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sixteen questionnaires were returned, though not all 16 showed grades for every district judge. III Non-Attorneys Regarding District 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. 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 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, the oldest data in the pool is deleted. 20 ## Page 24 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 District 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 district 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 district 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 district 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 District 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. 21 ## Page 25 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 Welling 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 District Judges surveys for all district judges. 22 ## Page 26 Judge Craig R. Welling 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 12 7 2 0 3 30.0% Defense Attorneys 2 1 0 0 1 50.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 186 60 16 0 110 64.7% Other Attorneys Civil 1 0 1 0 0 0.0% Total Attorneys 201 68 19 0 114 62.6% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 116 73 33 0 10 12.0% Defendant 7 6 1 0 0 0.0% Civil Litigant 262 181 47 5 29 13.5% Other 11 5 1 0 5 50.0% Jurors 7 1 0 1 5 71.4% Employees, including Interpreters 17 9 4 0 4 30.8% Total Non-attorneys 420 275 86 6 53 15.9% Grand Total: 621 343 105 6 167 32.4% Note: “Undeliverable/Not Applicable” surveys are removed from the “Total Sent” prior to calculating the cooperation rate. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 23 ## Page 27 Total Response Counts by Type of Respondent for All District Judges* Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Completes Cooperation Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Rate Attorneys Criminal District Attorneys 3105 1702 353 0 1050 38.2% Defense Attorneys 4381 2309 386 0 1686 42.2% Other Attorneys Criminal 164 88 10 0 66 42.9% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 3667 1426 237 0 2004 58.4% Other Attorneys Civil 4136 1945 378 0 1813 48.2% GAL 34 11 2 0 21 65.6% Total Attorneys 15487 7481 1366 0 6640 47.0% Non-attorneys Criminal Victim 55 28 18 0 9 24.3% Witness 5936 3024 1701 304 907 21.4% Other 58 32 13 3 10 22.2% Law Enforcement 5118 2861 1236 140 881 22.7% Defendant 17993 7871 8866 117 1139 12.5% Civil Litigant 8137 4580 1905 149 1503 24.1% Witness 122 51 34 3 34 38.6% Other 221 78 56 8 79 47.9% Jurors 17789 7033 1065 254 9437 56.4% Employees, including Interpreters 1120 450 172 21 477 50.3% Probation Officers 65 19 0 5 41 63.1% Total Non-attorneys 56614 26027 15066 1004 14517 34.9% Grand Total: 72101 33508 16432 1004 21157 38.0% * Includes only the District 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 24 ## Page 28 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 6640 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% 20% 6% 2% 1% 20% 3.44 1b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 60% 24% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3.39 1c.Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 48% 26% 9% 3% 2% 12% 3.30 1d.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 53% 27% 9% 4% 3% 4% 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 55% 25% 10% 4% 3% 2% 3.29 2b.Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 52% 24% 11% 6% 4% 3% 3.17 2c.Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 36% 19% 10% 6% 6% 24% 2.96 2d.Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 41% 26% 11% 5% 4% 14% 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.14 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 63% 24% 7% 2% 1% 3% 3.50 3b.Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 51% 23% 9% 4% 2% 10% 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 67% 20% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 66% 17% 8% 4% 4% 1% 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 60% 19% 9% 5% 5% 2% 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 54% 22% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a.Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 51% 25% 11% 6% 4% 2% 3.16 rules. 5b.Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 57% 23% 9% 4% 3% 5% 3.34 cases. 5c.Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they 55% 18% 6% 3% 2% 15% 3.43 are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.30 * Includes only the District 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 25 ## Page 29 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District Judges* (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% Completely neutral 46% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 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 56% Recommend retain 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 8% Recommend not retain 5% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total Retain 80% Neither 8% Total Not Retain 11% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 26 ## Page 30 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges All District Judges* Average Grade Sample Size = 14517 A B C D Fail DK/NA (0.0 to 4.0 scale) 1. Demeanor: 1a.Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 81% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.72 1b.Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 83% 10% 3% 1% 2% 0% 3.73 1c.Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 81% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.67 1d.Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 77% 13% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a.Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 81% 11% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3.70 2b.Treating those involved in the case without bias. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3.66 2c.Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 53% 6% 2% 1% 2% 36% 3.68 2d.Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 11% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.69 3. Communications: 3a.Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 82% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b.Using language that everyone can understand. 82% 13% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.75 3c.Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 84% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a.Beginning court on time. 71% 19% 5% 1% 1% 2% 3.61 4b.Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 83% 11% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.76 4c.Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 72% 13% 4% 1% 2% 9% 3.67 4d.Being prepared for cases. 80% 10% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.73 4e.Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2% 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a.Giving reasons for rulings. 73% 13% 4% 1% 3% 7% 3.63 5b.Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 68% 9% 2% 1% 2% 17% 3.67 pressure. 5c.Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 75% 11% 3% 2% 3% 7% 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 * Includes only the District 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 27 ## Page 31 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grade All District 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 8% Competely neutral 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 7% Average 0.05 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 8% Competely neutral 82% Lenient sentencing total 11% Average 0.01 How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 75% Recommend retain 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 6% Recommend not retain 2% Strongly recommend not retain 4% Total Retain 88% Neither 6% Total Not Retain 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 28 ## Page 32 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges All District Judges* DK/ Sample Size = 16 A B C D Fail NA All district judges eligible to stand for retention in 2014. 23% 16% 2% 1% 0% 58% 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. 2014 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 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 35 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 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 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 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 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 ## Page 38 Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D or F for fail, please grade the following district judges in terms of each one’s overall performance as a judge by circling the appropriate letter grade. If you feel that you don’t have enough information about a judge to mark a specific grade, please put a check in the box under “No Grade.” If there are any judges you would like to add a comment about, please do so by filling out comment section on pages 3 and 4, or by enclosing a separate sheet with your comments when you return this questionnaire. Please start each comment with the judge’s name and district. Thank you. 1st Judicial District No Grade 4th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Randall C. Arp ............... A B C D F Barbara L. Hughes ........ A B C D F Jack W. Berryhill............ A B C D F Thomas K. Kane ........... A B C D F Margie L. Enquist .......... A B C D F Thomas L. Kennedy ...... A B C D F Ann Gail Meinster .......... A B C D F Michael P. McHenry ...... A B C D F Lily W. Oeffler ................ A B C D F David Prince .................. A B C D F Tamara S. Russell ......... A B C D F Gregory R. Werner........ A B C D F Chistopher C. Zenisek ... A B C D F 5th Judicial District 2nd Judicial District Frederick W. Gannett .... A B C D F Martin F. Egelhoff .......... A B C D F Russell H. Granger ....... A B C D F J. Eric Elliff ..................... A B C D F Mark D. Thompson ....... A B C D F A. Bruce Jones .............. A B C D F 6th Judicial District Elizabeth Leith ............... A B C D F Suzanne F. Carlson ...... A B C D F John W. Madden, IV ...... A B C D F 7th Judicial District Robert L. McGahey, Jr. . A B C D F Mary Deganhart ............ A B C D F Sheila A. Rappaport ...... A B C D F Charles R. Greenacre ... A B C D F Elizabeth A. Starrs ........ A B C D F J. Steven Patrick ........... A B C D F Michael J. Vallejos ........ A B C D F James W. Schum .......... A B C D F 4th Judicial District 8th Judicial District William B. Bain .............. A B C D F Julie Kunce Field........... A B C D F Edward S. Colt, II .......... A B C D F Thomas R. French ........ A B C D F Jann P. DuBois.............. A B C D F Stephen E. Howard ....... A B C D F 1 ## Page 39 9th Judicial District No Grade 20th Judicial District (cont.) No Grade Denise Lynch................. A B C D F Ingrid S. Bakke .............. A B C D F 10th Judicial District Maria E. Berkenkotter ... A B C D F William D. Alexander ..... A B C D F Patrick D. Butler ............ A B C D F Victor I. Reyes ............... A B C D F Judith L. LaBuda ........... A B C D F Andrew R. Macdonald .. A B C D F 11th Judicial District David M. Thorson .......... A B C D F 21st Judicial District David A. Bottger ............ A B C D F 12th Judicial District Thomas M. Deister........ A B C D F Michael A. Gonzales ..... A B C D F Brian J. Flynn ................ A B C D F 13th Judicial District 22nd Judicial District Kevin L. Hoyer ............... A B C D F Douglas S. Walker ........ A B C D F Douglas R. Vannoy ....... A B C D F 14th Judicial District Shelley A. Hill ................ A B C D F 17th Judicial District Please use the following pages or attach a Robert W. Kiesnowski, Jr. A B C D F sheet for comments you would like to make John E. Popovich, Jr. .... A B C D F about any of these district judges. Ted C. Tow, III ............... A B C D F Mark D. Warner ............. A B C D F Francis C. Wasserman .. A B C D F Craig R. Welling ............ A B C D F 18th Judicial District Michelle A. Amico .......... A B C D F F. Stephen Collins ......... A B C D F Paul A. King................... A B C D F Charles M. Pratt ............ A B C D F Gerald J. Rafferty .......... A B C D F Theresa M. Slade .......... A B C D F Elizabeth B. Volz ........... A B C D F John L. Wheeler ............ A B C D F Vincent R. White ........... A B C D F 19th Judicial District Timothy G. Kerns .......... A B C D F Marcelo Kopcow ............ A B C D F 2 ## Page 40 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ 3 ## Page 41 Though your name will never be associated with your answers, because each district judge will see a typed transcript of the comments people wrote about him or her, it is important that you do not include information in the comments below that would unintentionally identify you as the author. Judge Name Comments _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _ _ Barcode Goes Here 4

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

• 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
• 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026