Christopher C. Zenisek
Trial Court · Gilpin · Gilpin
Meets Standards3 cycles on record
Evaluation history
- 2026 retention cycleTrial Court · Gilpin · GilpinCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersOn the November 3, 2026 ballot· Coloradans vote on this judge’s retention on November 3, 2026; the outcome will appear here after the election.Retention Year: 2026Recommendation: Meets Performance Standards Reports: 2026 Retention Survey Report (PDF) 2023 Interim Survey Report (PDF) The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Christopher C. Zenisek MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Zenisek is a District Court Judge in Jefferson County presiding over a mixed docket of criminal, civil, and domestic relations matters. He is consistently described as thoughtful, prepared, thorough, and fair. He has a calm, professional demeanor that promotes respect, efficiency, and control in the courtroom. His rulings are timely, clear, and carefully considered, reflecting strong judgment, impartiality, and accountability, and he manages complex cases with diligence and skill. He is actively engaged in the legal community through service with multiple bar organizations and Colorado Supreme Court committees, participates in mock trials with high school students, and was appointed by the Chief Justice to preside over the Marshall Fire cases while maintaining a full caseload. He was able to manage this additional responsibility without taking a reduced caseload. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Zenisek, reviewed opinions he authored, observed Judge Zenisek in court, reviewed the 2025 Judicial Performance Survey Report from attorneys and non-attorneys appearing before him and received feedback from the Office of the State Public Defender and the First Judicial District Attorney's Office. Based on the Commission’s evaluation, Judge Zenisek demonstrated that he meets or exceeds performance standards in all categories under review: case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. Judge Zenisek was appointed to the First Judicial District Court in December 2011. Currently, he serves on the Leadership Committee of that Court. Before his judgeship, Judge Zenisek was an Assistant District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District and worked in private practice with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, P.C. and as a law clerk to Chief Judge Lewis Babcock (U.S. District Court) prior to that. Judge Zenisek received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado and his J.D. from the University of Denver. In 2026, Judge Zenisek was named as one of three finalists nominated for an appointment to the Colorado Supreme Court.
- 2020 retention cycleTrial Court · Gilpin · GilpinCommission vote: 10 for · 0 againstMeets StandardsVotersRetained· 73.9% yes221,492 yes · 78,074 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2020 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard Reports: 2020 Retention Survey Report 2019 Interim Survey Report The First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Christopher Zenisek MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Judge Zenisek presides over a mixed docket of criminal, civil, and domestic relations cases. Judge Zenisek is viewed as organized, well prepared for hearings and very good at listening to both sides of a case. Judge Zenisek endeavors to keep up with current practices, sharing knowledge with other judges, and his participation at legal conferences is acknowledged by the Commission. Judge Zenisek is viewed by those that practice before him as one of the best judges in the district. He is perceived as very bright, hardworking, and committed to serving litigants that appear before him. Courtroom observations by this Commission reveal that Judge Zenisek runs an efficient and organized courtroom, leaving appropriate time and opportunity for comment and decision making. He was observed to be polite, knowledgeable about the law, and attentive during his interactions with litigants. He was thoughtful, pleasant, and efficient. The Commission’s conclusions are based upon several criteria: judicial performance survey responses, a personal interview with Judge Zenisek, a review of opinions he authored, courtroom observations and feedback from the chief judge, the District Attorney and Chief Public Defender. Regarding the survey responses, when asked whether he “meets performance standards,” Judge Zenisek received an overall grade of 3.4 on a 4.0 scale. Of the 39 attorney responses, 74 percent felt that Judge Zenisek met performance standards. Of the two non-attorney respondents, 100 percent felt that Judge Zenisek met performance standards.
- 2014 retention cycleTrial Court · Gilpin · GilpinMeets Standards(Retain)VotersRetained· 67.6% yes131,972 yes · 63,261 no50% needed to retainRetention Year: 2014 Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard 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 First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Christopher C. Zenisek BE RETAINED. Judge Zenisek was appointed to the First Judicial District Court in December 2011. This is his first performance review since being appointed to the bench. Judge Zenisek received his undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado and his J.D. from the University of Denver. Before joining the Court he was an Assistant District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District in Boulder. Prior to 2009 he was in private practice with the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, P.C. Judge Zenisek is a member of the Colorado Supreme Court Civil Rules Committee, a member of Access to Justice Hearing, a member of the Monthly Luncheon Committee for the First Judicial District Bar Association, a mentor in the Mentor Program at the University of Denver College of Law and a member of the Colorado Bar Association. He is also a judge for the High School Mock Trial competitions. He coaches his son’s soccer team and believes that community involvement is extremely important. Judge Zenisek presides over a mixed docket of criminal, civil and domestic relations cases. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Zenisek, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys responding to the survey, 84% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 12% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of non-attorneys responding to the survey, 92% recommended to retain, 6% recommended not to retain, and 3% made no recommendation regarding retention. (The percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.) Survey results from attorneys and non-attorneys show that Judge Zenisek has good judicial demeanor and shows patience and respect for participants. He is prepared and timely in his rulings and is very good in his application of the Law. Survey results from both attorneys and non-attorneys reveal few weaknesses. He was, however, criticized for a lack of control and needing a better presence in the courtroom. Some attorneys felt that he was somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution. Based on the above, the Commission unanimously recommends that Judge Zenisek BE RETAINED.
Surveys & reports
- 2026 cycle
- 2025 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Christopher C. Zenisek 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Christopher C. Zenisek, 61 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 51 agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 51 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.92 3.99 4.00 3.76 3.54 3.18 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.54 3.18 3.92 3.99 3.76 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 80% 80% 71% 64% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 71% 64% 90% 80% 100% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.24 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.00 3.88 3.98 3.64 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.29 3.93 3.98 3.81 Diligence 3.13 3.94 3.99 3.80 Demeanor 3.23 3.97 4.00 3.89 Fairness N/A 3.90 4.00 3.65 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 122 0 34 28% 24% Total Non- 212 20 27 13% 7% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 52 1 19 37% 5% Other Non- 160 19 8 5% 13% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Zenisek, 34 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 26 agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 26 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Christopher C. Zenisek be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Total Retain 64% Neither 20% Total Not Retain 16% Figure 3 100% 80% 59% 60% 52% 40% 21% 20% 20% 12% 9% 8% 6% 8% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.24 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.12 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.12 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 6 Case Management Judge Christopher C. All Judge Zenisek A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Number of Judges Responses: 26 Promptly issuing a decision on the 65% -- 8% 8% -- 19% 3.52 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 62% 12% 12% 8% 8% -- 3.12 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 58% 19% 4% 4% 4% 12% 3.39 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 58% 12% 19% 8% 4% -- 3.12 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.24 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.00 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.04 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.88 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 2.75 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.00 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.12 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 26 Zenisek Judges Being able to identify and 60% 8% 20% 8% 4% -- 3.12 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 54% 15% 12% 15% 4% -- 3.00 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 2.75 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 50% 12% 23% 8% 8% -- 2.88 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 58% 8% 19% 12% 4% -- 3.04 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.00 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.29 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.23 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.32 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 8 Communications Judge Christopher C. All Zenisek A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge District Zenisek Number of Responses: 26 Judges Making sure all participants 62% 12% 15% 8% -- 4% 3.32 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 58% 8% 8% 4% 8% 15% 3.23 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.29 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.23 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.00 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.31 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Judges Number of Responses: 26 Giving proceedings a sense of 69% 4% 19% 8% -- -- 3.35 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 73% -- 19% -- 8% -- 3.31 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 54% 8% 23% 4% 8% 4% 3.00 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.23 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.13 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.32 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 3.20 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.08 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 10 Diligence Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 26 Zenisek Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 62% 4% 19% 12% 4% -- 3.08 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 62% 8% 15% 8% 4% 4% 3.20 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 46% 23% 12% 4% -- 15% 3.32 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.13 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Zenisek in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 48% 44% 40% 29% 22% 22% 20% 11% 11% 8% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Christopher C. Zenisek, 27 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 25 agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 25 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 16 ## Page 19 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Total Retain 90% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 10% Figure 10 100% 80% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 10% 10% 6% 6% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.97 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.96 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.96 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.96 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 12 Demeanor Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Zenisek Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.68 Treating participants with respect 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.97 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.90 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.92 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.94 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.92 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 13 Fairness Judge Christopher C. All Zenisek Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Number of Responses: 25 Judges Giving participants an 92% 4% 4% -- -- -- 3.88 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 68% 4% -- -- -- 28% 3.94 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 96% -- 4% -- -- -- 3.92 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.90 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.78 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said 3.96 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.92 Making sure all participants understand the 3.70 proceedings 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 14 Communications Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Zenisek Judges Making sure all participants understand the 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.78 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.94 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.92 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.92 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.92 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 15 Diligence Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Zenisek Judges Beginning court on time 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 88% 8% -- -- -- 4% 3.92 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 88% 8% -- -- -- 4% 3.92 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.94 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.88 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.91 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.90 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 16 Application of Law Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Number of Responses: 24 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 84% 12% -- -- -- 4% 3.88 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 76% 8% -- -- -- 16% 3.90 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 84% 8% -- -- -- 8% 3.91 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.88 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Zenisek is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Zenisek is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 96% 100% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Zenisek are. If you feel Judge Zenisek generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 88% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 8% 7% 4% 5% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 25 - 2026 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Structured scores pending
Full numeric extraction isn’t complete for this cycle’s layout yet. Open the source PDF above for the underlying data.
- 2020 cycle
- 2019 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Christopher C. Zenisek 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 1 Overall Score . 1 Retention Scores . 2 Individual Category Scores . 3 Summary of Responses . 4 Survey of Attorneys . 5 Methodology and How to Read Results . 5 Retention . 8 Case Management . 9 Application and Knowledge of Law .10 Communications .11 Demeanor .12 Diligence .13 Bias .14 Survey of Non-Attorneys .15 Methodology and How to Read Results .15 Retention .18 Demeanor .19 Fairness .20 Communications .21 Diligence .22 Application of Law .23 Bias .24 Perception of Leniency or Harshness .25 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Christopher C. Zenisek, 61 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 51 agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 51 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score Figure 1 3.92 3.99 4.00 3.76 3.54 3.18 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other* Table 1 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Overall Scores Non-Attorneys Non- Total Non- Combined Attorneys Juror Attorney Attorneys Other* Overall Grade 3.54 3.18 3.92 3.99 3.76 * The Non-Attorney Other category includes law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants, and witnesses. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 1 ## Page 4 Retention Scores Figure 2 100% 100% 90% 80% 80% 71% 64% 60% 40% 20% 0% Combined Attorneys Total Non-Attorneys Juror Non-Attorney Other Table 2 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Overall Retention Scores Non-Attorneys Total Non- Combined Attorneys Non- Juror Attorney Attorneys Other % Recommending 71% 64% 90% 80% 100% Retention 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 2 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores Table 3 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Overall Category Scores Non-Attorney Non- Area Attorney Total Juror Attorney Other Case Management 3.24 N/A N/A N/A Application and 3.00 3.88 3.98 3.64 Knowledge of Law Communications 3.29 3.93 3.98 3.81 Diligence 3.13 3.94 3.99 3.80 Demeanor 3.23 3.97 4.00 3.89 Fairness N/A 3.90 4.00 3.65 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 3 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Table 4: Response Rates Undeliverable % Without Response Group Total Sent or Not Complete sufficient Rate** Applicable* knowledge*** Attorneys 122 0 34 28% 24% Total Non- 212 20 27 13% 7% Attorneys Staff 0 0 0 N/A N/A Jurors 52 1 19 37% 5% Other Non- 160 19 8 5% 13% Attorneys *Undeliverable or Not Applicable surveys are those that were returned as undeliverable, the person no longer works at the address provided, or the respondent is deceased. ** Response rates are calculated by adding the number of completed responses to the number of undeliverable responses and dividing the results by the total invitations sent. ***The percent without sufficient knowledge are those that said they had insufficient experience to evaluate the judge or justice. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 4 ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Zenisek, 34 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 26 agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 26 responses. The survey results are divided into nine sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Bias, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The results are shown in both graphs and tables. Each judge’s scores are shown along with a comparison to other judges who serve at the same court level. The comparison group is called “District Judges” on the charts. a. Response rates During the 2016-2017 administration, a total of 23,267 survey invitations were sent to 5,865 attorneys inviting them to evaluate judges and justices eligible to receive an interim review in 2017. On average, each attorney was asked to evaluate 3 judges. 4,676 surveys were completed with an additional 2,022 responses where the attorneys 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 29% 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 60%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 attorney survey was conducted online beginning on September 16th, 2016. Attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on September 16th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. Next, a series of three email invitations were sent on September 27th, October 12th, and November 1st, 2016. To further increase response rates, an additional cycle of data collection took place in January and February 2017. Invitations were sent to attorneys who had appeared before judges receiving interim evaluations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. A pre-notification letter was sent to these attorneys on January 31st, 2017 and was followed up by emailed invitations sent on February 7th, February 16th, and February 27th, 2017. Additional invitations were sent out on request throughout data collection. All online surveys were closed and mail returns were cut off on March 2nd, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 5 ## Page 8 c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). These aspects were grouped by topic into categories; five for district and county judges and two for appellate. The district and county categories were: case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories; one for general questions and one specific to their writing (which was only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. While the formatting and structure of the survey was updated for 2016, the question wording was carried over from the 2015 administration and has remained consistent since 2013. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Question Category Areas* Appellate Trial Judge: Judge/Justice Attorney Attorney Survey Survey Question Categories Appellate Judge General Questions 6 Application and Knowledge of Law 5 Case Management 4 Communications 2 Demeanor 3 Diligence 3 Writing 6 Individual Questions Bias 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in e ach category by survey group. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 6 ## Page 9 d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention. e. Comments At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 7 ## Page 10 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Christopher C. Zenisek be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Table 5 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Total Retain 64% Neither 20% Total Not Retain 16% Figure 3 100% 80% 59% 60% 52% 40% 21% 20% 20% 12% 9% 8% 6% 8% 5% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 8 ## Page 11 Case Management Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 4 3.36 Case Management Overall Average 3.24 3.31 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.12 3.36 Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions 3.39 3.38 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 3.12 3.45 Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial 3.52 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 6 Case Management Judge Christopher C. All Judge Zenisek A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Number of Judges Responses: 26 Promptly issuing a decision on the 65% -- 8% 8% -- 19% 3.52 3.45 case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 62% 12% 12% 8% 8% -- 3.12 3.38 over proceedings Promptly ruling on 58% 19% 4% 4% 4% 12% 3.39 3.36 pre-trial motions Setting reasonable schedules for 58% 12% 19% 8% 4% -- 3.12 3.31 cases Case Management Overall Average 3.24 3.36 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 9 ## Page 12 Application and Knowledge of Law Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 5 3.23 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.00 3.19 Consistently applying laws and rules 3.04 3.21 Being fair and impartial to both sides of the case 2.88 Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances 3.14 are similar 2.75 3.20 Basing decisions on evidence and arguments 3.00 3.32 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.12 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 7 Application and Knowledge of Law Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 26 Zenisek Judges Being able to identify and 60% 8% 20% 8% 4% -- 3.12 3.32 analyze relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 54% 15% 12% 15% 4% -- 3.00 3.20 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 44% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 2.75 3.14 similar Being fair and impartial to both 50% 12% 23% 8% 8% -- 2.88 3.21 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 58% 8% 19% 12% 4% -- 3.04 3.19 rules Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.00 3.23 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 10 ## Page 13 Communications Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 6 3.45 Communications Overall Average 3.29 Providing written communications that are clear, 3.34 thorough and well reasoned 3.23 Making sure all participants understand the 3.57 proceedings 3.32 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 8 Communications Judge Christopher C. All Zenisek A B C D Fail DK/NA Judge District Zenisek Number of Responses: 26 Judges Making sure all participants 62% 12% 15% 8% -- 4% 3.32 3.57 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, 58% 8% 8% 4% 8% 15% 3.23 3.34 thorough and well reasoned Communications Overall Average 3.29 3.45 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 11 ## Page 14 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 7 3.41 Demeanor Overall Average 3.23 3.31 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 3.00 3.43 Treating participants with respect 3.31 3.49 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.35 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 9 Demeanor All Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Judges Number of Responses: 26 Giving proceedings a sense of 69% 4% 19% 8% -- -- 3.35 3.49 dignity Treating participants with respect 73% -- 19% -- 8% -- 3.31 3.43 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 54% 8% 23% 4% 8% 4% 3.00 3.31 neutral manner Demeanor Overall Average 3.23 3.41 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 12 ## Page 15 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an "A" is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade Judge Zenisek on the following. If, for a specific question you feel that you do not have enough information to grade the judge, please check DK/NA for Don't Know/Not Applicable. Figure 8 3.32 Diligence Overall Average 3.13 Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 3.45 they are complicated and time consuming 3.32 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.35 for cases 3.20 Using good judgment in application of relevant law 3.20 and rules 3.08 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 10 Diligence Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 26 Zenisek Judges Using good judgment in application of relevant 62% 4% 19% 12% 4% -- 3.08 3.20 law and rules Doing the necessary “homework” and being 62% 8% 15% 8% 4% 4% 3.20 3.35 prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time 46% 23% 12% 4% -- 15% 3.32 3.45 consuming Diligence Overall Average 3.13 3.32 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 13 ## Page 16 Bias Having observed Judge Zenisek in a criminal case, would you say the judge is: Figure 9 100% 80% 60% 48% 44% 40% 29% 22% 22% 20% 11% 11% 8% 3% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 14 ## Page 17 Survey of Non-Attorneys Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Christopher C. Zenisek, 27 qualified survey respondents submitted surveys. Of those who responded, 25 agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate his performance. This report reflects these 25 responses. a. Response rates During the 2016 administration of non-attorneys, 5,418 complete surveys have been received and an additional 1,940 indicated that they did not have enough experience to evaluate the judge. The response rate among non-attorneys is 8% and the completion rate is 70%. b. Methodology The 2016-2017 non-attorney survey was conducted via a mixed mode online and mail survey beginning May 18th, 2016 and ending on March 2nd, 2017. Due to email addresses not being available, non-attorneys were first mailed a pre-notification letter sent on May 18th, 2016 informing them about the survey and providing a link and login information to access the survey online. This was followed up with a second mailing that also included the information to access the survey online, as well as a full printed survey booklet and postage-paid return envelope. This second mailing was sent on June 17th, 2016. Invitations for this first cycle were based on experiences with judges that occurred in the first quarter of 2016. This process for non-attorneys was repeated in the fall of 2016 for those that had experience with judges receiving an interim evaluation in the 2nd quarter of 2016, and again in January and February 2017 for those who had experiences with judges in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016. For the fall cycle, the pre-notification letter was sent on September 16th, 2016 and the follow-up survey booklet was sent on November 2nd, 2016. For the January-February cycle, the order of the mailings was switched due to the constraints of the reporting schedule. The first mailing, sent on January 31st, 2017, included the full survey booklet and a return mailing envelope as well as instructions to access the survey online. The second mailing, sent on February 14th, 2017, included only a letter with instructions to complete the survey online and reminded them of the survey deadline on March 1st, 2017. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 15 ## Page 18 c. Questions: Respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F (for Fail). Respondents were also asked if they considered the judge biased toward the defense or prosecution in criminal cases. Non-attorneys were also asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the sentencing. In a final question, respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they would recommend that the judge be retained or not retained in office. Question Category Areas* Non- attorneys Question Categories Application of Law 3 Communications 3 Demeanor 4 Diligence 5 Fairness 4 Individual Questions Bias 1 Appropriateness of Sentence 1 Recommendation to Retain 1 *The numbers in the table refer to the number of questi ons asked in ea ch category by survey group. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and Fail=0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney with each category. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Similarly, an average score is calculated for each individual question with the exception of the bias and retention questions. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 16 ## Page 19 The overall average and category scores will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. The average score (with exceptions noted above) will also be reported for each question, along with the peer group score. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of attorneys that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. The distribution of responses is also reported for the questions on bias and retention as well as appropriateness of sentences. e. Comments: At the end of each group of questions, respondents had the option of leaving comments about the judge’s performance in that area. Respondents were also asked what they considered to be the judge’s strengths and weaknesses and were allowed to leave open-ended responses to each. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 17 ## Page 20 Retention Keeping in mind your responses to each of the previous questions, how strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained in office, or not retained in office? Table 11 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Total Retain 90% Neither 0% Total Not Retain 10% Figure 10 100% 80% 80% 69% 60% 40% 16% 20% 10% 10% 6% 6% 3% 0% Strongly recommend Somewhat Undecided or don't Somewhat Strongly recommend that he or she be recommend he or know enough to recommend he or he or she not be retained in office she be retained in make a she not be retained retained in office office recommendation in office Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 18 ## Page 21 Demeanor Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 11 3.61 Demeanor Overall Average 3.97 Having a sense of compassion and human 3.55 understanding for those who appear before him/her 3.96 3.56 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral manner 4.00 3.66 Treating participants with respect 3.96 3.68 Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.96 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 12 Demeanor Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Zenisek Judges Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.68 Treating participants with respect 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.66 Conducting his/her courtroom in a neutral 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.56 manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who appear before 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.55 him/her Demeanor Overall Average 3.97 3.61 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 19 ## Page 22 Fairness Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 12 3.59 Fairness Overall Average 3.90 3.60 Giving each side enough time to present his or her case 3.92 3.64 Treating fairly people who represent themselves 3.94 3.53 Treating those involved in the case without bias 3.92 3.63 Giving participants an opportunity to be heard 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 13 Fairness Judge Christopher C. All Zenisek Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Number of Responses: 25 Judges Giving participants an 92% 4% 4% -- -- -- 3.88 3.63 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved in the 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.53 case without bias Treating fairly people who 68% 4% -- -- -- 28% 3.94 3.64 represent themselves Giving each side enough time 96% -- 4% -- -- -- 3.92 3.60 to present his or her case Fairness Overall Average 3.90 3.59 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 20 ## Page 23 Communications Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 13 3.74 Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.78 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s being said 3.96 3.73 Using language that everyone can understand 3.92 Making sure all participants understand the 3.70 proceedings 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 14 Communications Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Zenisek Judges Making sure all participants understand the 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.70 proceedings Using language that everyone can understand 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.73 Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 96% 4% -- -- -- -- 3.96 3.78 can hear what’s being said Communications Overall Average 3.93 3.74 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 21 ## Page 24 Diligence Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 14 3.63 Diligence Overall Average 3.94 Managing court proceedings so that there is little 3.60 wasted time 3.92 3.61 Setting reasonable schedules for cases 3.92 3.72 Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings 4.00 Doing the necessary “homework” and being prepared 3.65 for cases 3.92 3.62 Beginning court on time 3.92 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 15 Diligence Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Number of Responses: 25 Zenisek Judges Beginning court on time 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.62 Doing the necessary “homework” and being 88% 8% -- -- -- 4% 3.92 3.65 prepared for cases Maintaining appropriate control over 100% -- -- -- -- -- 4.00 3.72 proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for cases 88% 8% -- -- -- 4% 3.92 3.61 Managing court proceedings so that there is 92% 8% -- -- -- -- 3.92 3.60 little wasted time Diligence Overall Average 3.94 3.63 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 22 ## Page 25 Application of Law Using a grade scale, where an “A” is excellent along with B, C, D, or F for fail, please grade the judge on the following. If you feel that you don’t have experience with the judge in a specific area, or just don’t know, please mark “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” - DK/NA. Figure 15 3.52 Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.88 3.50 Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts 3.91 Willing to make decision without regard to possible 3.53 outside pressure 3.90 3.53 Giving reasons for rulings 3.88 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 All District Judges Judge Zenisek Table 16 Application of Law Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All Judge A B C D Fail DK/NA District Zenisek Number of Responses: 24 Judges Giving reasons for rulings 84% 12% -- -- -- 4% 3.88 3.53 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 76% 8% -- -- -- 16% 3.90 3.53 pressure Being able to identify and 84% 8% -- -- -- 8% 3.91 3.50 analyze relevant facts Application and Knowledge of Law Overall Average 3.88 3.52 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 23 ## Page 26 Bias On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how biased you think Judge Zenisek is toward the defense or the prosecution. If you feel Judge Zenisek is completely unbiased, select “0.” Figure 16 96% 100% 81% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 0% Very biased in favor Somewhat biased in Completely Neutral Somewhat biased in Very biased in favor of the prosecution favor of the favor of the defense of the defense prosecution Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 24 ## Page 27 Perception of Leniency or Harshness On the scale below, please indicate by selecting the appropriate number how lenient or how harsh you think the sentences generally handed down by Judge Zenisek are. If you feel Judge Zenisek generally hands down appropriate sentences, circle “0.” Figure 17 100% 88% 79% 80% 60% 40% 20% 4% 8% 7% 4% 5% 5% 0% Sentences too Light 2 Sentences are 4 Sentences are too Appropriate Harsh Judge Zenisek All District Judges 2017 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 25 - 2020 Retention Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)Overall score3.4judge rating, 0–4 scaleAttorneys recommend74%76 respondentsNon-attorneys recommend100%3 respondents
Read full retention survey textexpand
## Page 1 The Honorable Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report District Court Conducted by: 75 Washington Ave. Ste. 2C Portland, ME 04101 www.marketdecisions.com ## Page 2 Contents Summary of Results . 3 Overall Score . 3 Performance Scores . 4 Individual Category Scores . 5 Summary of Responses . 6 Detailed Report . 7 Case Management . 7 Application and Knowledge of Law . 8 Communications . 9 Demeanor . 10 Diligence . 11 Fairness . 13 Survey of Appellate Judges . 14 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non-attorney . 15 Methodology and How to Read Results . 15 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges . 18 Methodology and How to Read Results . 18 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent . 19 i ## Page 3 Summary of Results For Judge Zenisek, 41 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 41 responses. Respondents rated judges on various questions using an A to F scale, in which the grades were then converted to the following numerical scores: A= 4, B=3, C=2, D=1 and Fail=0. An average score of 4.0 is the highest possible score and a 0.0 is the lowest possible score. Overall Score 4 3.4 3.4 3 2 1 0 Judge Zenisek All District Judges Judge Zenisek All District Judges Overall Grade 3.4 3.4 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 3 ## Page 4 Performance Scores 100% 100% 92% 83% 80% 74% 60% 40% 17% 20% 12% 9% 5% 6% 3% 0% Judge Zenisek All District Judges Judge Zenisek All District Judges Attorneys Non-Attorneys Yes, meets performance standards No, does not meet performance standards No opinion Attorneys Non-Attorneys All All Judge Judge District District Zenisek Zenisek Judges Judges Yes, meets performance 74% 83% 100% 92% standards No, does not meet 17% 12% 0% 6% performance standards No opinion 9% 5% 0% 3% Note: All percentages in this report are rounded to the nearest percentage point. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 4 ## Page 5 Individual Category Scores 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.4 Case Management 3.4 3.3 Application and Knowledge of Law 3.3 3.5 Communications 3.5 3.3 Diligence 3.4 3.4 Demeanor 3.5 4.0 Fairness 3.7 Judge Zenisek All District Judges Judge All District Zenisek Judges Case 3.4 3.4 Management Application and Knowledge of 3.3 3.3 Law Communications 3.5 3.5 Diligence 3.3 3.4 Demeanor 3.4 3.5 Fairness 4.0 3.7 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 5 ## Page 6 Summary of Responses Percent Number Response with with Group Responses Rate Sufficient Sufficient Knowledge Knowledge Attorneys 76 32% 51% 39 Non-Attorneys 3 75% 67% 2 In addition to the responses above, Judge Zenisek received 0 response(s) via the open Citizen Feedback survey. Those responses are included with non-attorney results wherever applicable. However, due to the nature of data collection, they are not included in response rates. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 6 ## Page 7 Detailed Report Case Management 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Zenisek Overall 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Zenisek Attorneys 3.4 Judge Zenisek Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Zenisek Judges Zenisek Zenisek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Promptly issuing a decision on 3.7 3.5 3.7 4.0 25 the case after trial Maintaining appropriate control 3.3 3.5 3.3 4.0 37 over proceedings Promptly ruling on pre-trial 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.0 34 motions Setting reasonable schedules for 3.5 3.4 3.5 4.0 37 cases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 7 ## Page 8 Application and Knowledge of Law 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Zenisek Overall 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.3 Judge Zenisek Attorneys 3.3 Judge Zenisek Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Zenisek Judges Zenisek Zenisek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Being able to identify and analyze 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.0 36 relevant facts Basing decisions on evidence 3.1 3.3 3.1 N/A 33 and arguments Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 24 similar Being fair and impartial to both 3.3 3.3 3.3 N/A 35 sides of the case Consistently applying laws and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 33 rules Giving reasons for rulings 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 pressure 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 8 ## Page 9 Communications 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Zenisek Overall 3.5 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Zenisek Attorneys 3.5 Judge Zenisek Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Zenisek Judges Zenisek Zenisek Non- Responses Overall Overall Attorneys Attorneys Making sure all participants 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.0 36 understand the proceedings Providing written communications that are clear, thorough and well 3.4 3.3 3.4 N/A 36 reasoned Using language that everyone 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 can understand Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear what’s 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 being said 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 9 ## Page 10 Demeanor 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Zenisek Score 3.4 District Judges Overall 3.5 Judge Zenisek Attorneys 3.4 Judge Zenisek Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Zenisek Judges Zenisek Zenisek Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Giving proceedings a sense of dignity 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.0 38 Treating participants with respect 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.0 38 Conducting his/her courtroom in a 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.0 38 neutral manner Having a sense of compassion and human understanding for those who 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 appear before him/her 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 10 ## Page 11 Diligence 0 1 2 3 4 Judge Zenisek Score 3.3 District Judges Overall 3.4 Judge Zenisek Attorneys 3.3 Judge Zenisek Non-Attorneys 3.9 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 11 ## Page 12 Judge District Judge Judge Number of Zenisek Judges Zenisek Zenisek Non- Responses Score Overall Attorneys Attorneys Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 3.2 3.3 3.2 N/A 33 rules Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3 3.4 3 N/A 29 complicated and time consuming Doing the necessary “homework” 3.3 3.4 3.3 N/A 34 and being prepared for cases Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are 3.5 3.6 N/A 3.5 2 complicated and time consuming Beginning court on time 4 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 Maintaining appropriate control 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 1 over proceedings Setting reasonable schedules for 4 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 cases Managing court proceedings so 4 3.5 N/A 4.0 2 that there is little wasted time 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 12 ## Page 13 Fairness 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Zenisek Score 4.0 District Judges Overall 3.7 Judge Zenisek Attorneys Judge Zenisek Non-Attorneys 4.0 Judge Zenisek District Judge Zenisek Judge Zenisek Number of Score Judges Overall Attorneys Non-Attorneys Responses Giving participants an 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 opportunity to be heard Treating those involved 4.0 3.6 N/A 4.0 2 in the case without bias Treating fairly people who represent 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 1 themselves Giving each side enough time to present his or her 4.0 3.7 N/A 4.0 2 case 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 13 ## Page 14 Survey of Appellate Judges For Judge Zenisek 9 appellate judges agreed they had worked with Judge Zenisek enough to evaluate their performance. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Judge Zenisek Score 3.9 Judge Zenisek District Judges Number of Score Overall Responses Overall performance as a judge 3.9 3.6 9 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 14 ## Page 15 Appendix 1. Survey Methods – Attorney and Non- attorney Methodology and How to Read Results For Judge Zenisek, 41 individuals completed surveys with at least a single rating question answered. This report reflects these 41 responses. The survey results are divided into eight sections: Retention, Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, Diligence, Fairness, Strengths, and Weaknesses. a. Response rates Attorneys During the 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%. Non-attorneys The 2020 administration was a year of transition for the non-attorney survey. The bulk mailing of invitation letters and survey booklets was ceased and replaced with several other methods on a trial basis. During the 2020 cycle non-attorneys were invited through email, SMS messages, push to web handout cards, and push to web letters. Contact methods varied by the type of respondent and contact information available. In total through these methods 1520 surveys were completed with an additional 761 responses where the respondent 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 13% 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 7%. 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. Data collection among non-attorneys transitioned away from bulk mailings and toward electronic invitations during the 2020 cycle. Due to this transition, non-attorney responses are down from the 2019 cycle. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 15 ## Page 16 Data collection for non-attorneys began on September 3rd, 2019 and ran through the response deadline of February 20th, 2020. Survey invitations were sent by four different methods on a trial basis: Email, SMS message, push to web hand out, and push to web letter. Details on the responses from each method are detailed in the table below. Table 1: Non-Attorney completes by invitation method Invitation Method Invites Sent Completes Response Rate Email 10,609 1300 12% SMS/Text Message 49 19 39% Push to web hand out Unknown 89 N/A Push to web letter 334 60 18% Citizen Feedback Unknown 52 N/A In addition to the main non-attorney survey where respondents were invited to participate, there was also a citizen feedback survey available to all citizens on the OJPE website. This survey was open for the entire data collection period and data was downloaded for analysis on February 20th, 2020. During this period 52 valid responses were received. The survey remained open and any responses received after February 20thor for judges not receiving an evaluation in 2020 were held over for the 2021 interim evaluation cycle. c. Questions In the core of the survey, attorneys evaluated district and county judges on 17 aspects of judicial performance and appellate judges on 12 aspects of judicial performance using a grade scale of A, B, C, D, or F. These aspects were grouped by topic into different categories, five for district and county judges and two for appellate judges. The district and county categories were: Case Management, Application and Knowledge of Law, Communications, Demeanor, and Diligence. Questions regarding appellate judges were divided into two categories, one for general questions and one specific to their writing (only asked of those who indicated they had experience with the judge or justice’s written opinions). In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards The question wording for the core of the survey was carried over from the 2019 administration. The questions were originally developed in 1998 to meet the criteria outlined in statute 13-5.5-101 et seq. Non-attorney respondents evaluated judges on 19 aspects of judicial performance using the same grade scale of A, B, C, D, or Fail. In a final question, respondents were asked if they thought whether the judge met judicial performance standards. The overall structure of the survey was similar to the attorney survey, but the individual rating questions were tailored to aspects that could be rated by those without specific legal experience. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The results include an overall grade, a grade for each category, as well as a grade for each question. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorneys. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. Each category score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered by the attorney within each category. This score will have the same zero to four numerical range as the individual questions. Similarly, 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 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 16 ## Page 17 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 Christopher C. Zenisek 17 ## Page 18 Appendix 2. Survey Methodology - Appellate Judges Methodology and How to Read Results a. Response rates Invitations were sent via email to all 29 Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Of these, 9 completed the survey and felt they had sufficient knowledge of Judge Zenisek to evaluate their performance. b. Methodology Appellate judges were surveyed to evaluate the performance of district judges standing for retention. This evaluation of district judges was conducted via an online survey hosted in the Voxco survey software. An email invitation was sent on January 21st, 2020. c. Questions Due to the large number of judges being evaluated, the district judge evaluation survey consisted of a single question pertaining to each judge. Appellate judges and justices were asked to evaluate the district judge’s overall performance as a judge on a grade scale of A-F with A being “Excellent” and F being “Fail”. In the survey, the district judges being evaluated were grouped by district with the districts presented in random order to reduce bias. d. Analysis and Reporting Letter grades were then converted to a numerical score where A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1 and Fail = 0 for analysis. The overall score is calculated by averaging the responses to all questions answered. This score will have the same numerical range as the individual questions from zero to four. The overall average will be reported for each judge along with the average scores for the judge’s peers. In addition, the report will include the distribution of responses for each question. That is, the percentage of respondents that assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, and F. e. Comments Respondents were given the option to leave supporting comments in a box next to where they graded each judge. By statute, these comments are confidential and only provided to the judge and the District Commission on Judicial Performance. They are not released to the public when the rest of the report is released. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 18 ## Page 19 Appendix 3: Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Number of Undeliverable/ Cooperation Respondent Type Total Sent Completes* Responses Not Applicable Rate Attorney 235 76 0 39 51% Staff 4 3 0 2 - Others 0 0 0 0 - Total Non-Attorneys 4 3 0 2 67% Total Respondents 239 79 0 41 52% *Completed surveys include respondents who said that they have sufficient experience to evaluate the judge. 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Report for Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 19
- 2014 cycle
- 2013 Interim Survey Report(PDF on OJPE)
Read full interim survey textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Report 1st Judicial District ## Page 2 May 28, 2013 The Honorable Christopher C. Zenisek Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section Golden, CO 80401 Dear Judge Zenisek: 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. Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek received an overall combined average grade of 3.52 in the 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey Report. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.37, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.67, 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 Zenisek Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.52 3.37 3.67 Sample Size - 35 71 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 Zenisek’s overall average grades for each year in which survey results are available. Judge Zenisek Average Grades by Year Combined Attorney Non-Attorney Average Average Sample Average Sample Year Score Score Size Score Size 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 3.52 3.37 35 3.67 71 Overall 3.52 3.37 35 3.67 71 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 Zenisek’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 Zenisek Average Grades for Jurors vs. Non-Jurors (All Years) All District Judge Zenisek Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.80 54 76% 3.30 17 24% 3.87 3.30 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2 ## Page 6 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 3355)) ## Page 7 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Sample Size = 35 A B C D Fail DK/NA Zenisek Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 46% 17% 3% 3% 0% 31% 3.54 3.39 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 49% 40% 9% 3% 0% 0% 3.34 3.40 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 40% 23% 23% 0% 0% 14% 3.20 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 40% 46% 9% 3% 0% 3% 3.26 3.29 Overall Case Management 3.34 3.33 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 34% 34% 20% 0% 0% 11% 3.16 3.28 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 37% 31% 17% 3% 0% 11% 3.16 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 31% 14% 11% 0% 0% 43% 3.35 2.95 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 40% 13% 20% 0% 0% 27% 3.27 3.14 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.24 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 57% 26% 11% 0% 0% 6% 3.48 3.51 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 37% 37% 3% 0% 0% 23% 3.44 3.29 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.46 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 69% 23% 6% 3% 0% 0% 3.57 3.46 4b. Treating participants with respect. 80% 14% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3.74 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 71% 3% 20% 6% 0% 0% 3.40 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 57% 17% 20% 0% 0% 6% 3.39 3.24 Overall Demeanor 3.53 3.35 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 43% 31% 17% 0% 0% 9% 3.28 3.18 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 51% 26% 11% 0% 0% 11% 3.45 3.30 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 46% 9% 9% 3% 3% 31% 3.33 3.40 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.35 3.29 Overall Average Grade: 3.37 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Zenisek Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 13% 10% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 60% 27% Completely neutral 27% 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 49% 57% Recommend retain 31% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 17% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 80% 81% Neither 17% 9% Total Not Retain 3% 11% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 49% 57% Recommend retain 31% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 17% 9% Recommend not retain 3% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Don't know enough to make a recommmendation 0% 1% Total Retain 80% 81% Neither 17% 9% Total Not Retain 3% 11% Don't Know 0% 1% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey 5 ## Page 9 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.37 Overall Average Grade 3.29 3.34 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.33 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.54 case after trial. 3.39 3.34 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.40 3.20 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.25 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.26 3.29 3.24 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.16 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.28 3.16 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.35 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.95 3.27 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.14 when circumstances are similar. 3.46 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.48 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.51 the proceedings. 3.44 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.29 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Christopher C. Zenisek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 6 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 10 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.53 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.35 3.57 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.46 3.74 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.41 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.40 neutral manner. 3.28 3.39 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.24 3.35 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.29 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.28 relevant laws and rules. 3.18 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.45 being prepared for cases. 3.30 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.33 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.40 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 13% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 10% 60% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 27% 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% 60% 70% Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 49% Strongly recommend retain 57% 31% Recommend retain 24% Excluding DK Respondents 17% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Zenisek Judges* Total Retain 80% 81% 3% Recommend not retain Neither 17% 9% 5% Total Not Retain 3% 11% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 49% Strongly recommend retain 57% 31% Recommend retain 24% Including DK Respondents 17% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 9% Judge Zenisek Judges* 3% Recommend not retain Total Retain 80% 81% 5% Neither 17% 9% 0% Total Not Retain 3% 11% Strongly recommend not retain 6% Total DK 0% 1% Don't know enough to make a 0% recommendation 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Christopher C. Zenisek 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 CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7711)) ## Page 13 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Sample Size = 71 A B C D Fail DK/NA Zenisek Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 11% 6% 0% 1% 1% 3.71 3.68 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 80% 17% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3.77 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 77% 14% 4% 1% 1% 1% 3.67 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 75% 13% 6% 1% 1% 4% 3.65 3.58 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.70 3.64 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 78% 16% 0% 1% 1% 3% 3.73 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 74% 15% 4% 0% 3% 4% 3.63 3.61 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 46% 9% 3% 0% 3% 40% 3.56 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 79% 12% 3% 0% 1% 4% 3.75 3.66 Overall Fairness 3.67 3.64 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 74% 16% 6% 0% 3% 1% 3.61 3.70 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 81% 13% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.77 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 80% 14% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3.75 3.75 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.71 3.73 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 76% 14% 4% 0% 1% 4% 3.70 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 77% 14% 3% 0% 1% 4% 3.73 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 73% 13% 4% 1% 0% 9% 3.72 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 75% 12% 4% 0% 1% 7% 3.72 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 70% 13% 9% 1% 1% 6% 3.58 3.57 time. Overall Diligence 3.69 3.63 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 60% 16% 4% 1% 3% 16% 3.53 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 60% 10% 4% 0% 3% 23% 3.61 3.61 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 69% 9% 6% 0% 3% 14% 3.63 3.59 Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.59 Overall Average Grade: 3.67 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Zenisek Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 11% 9% Competely neutral 86% 85% Biased in favor of the defense total 2% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.30 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 9% 9% Competely neutral 88% 81% Lenient sentencing total 3% 10% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.18 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 70% 74% Recommend retain 24% 15% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 3% 4% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Total Retain 94% 89% Neither 3% 4% Total Not Retain 3% 7% Including "don't know" respondents. Strongly recommend retain 67% 71% Recommend retain 23% 14% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain in office 3% 4% Recommend not retain 0% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 3% 5% Don't know enough to make a recommendation 4% 4% Total Retain 90% 85% Neither 3% 4% Total Not Retain 3% 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.67 Overall Average Grade 3.64 3.70 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.64 3.71 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.68 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.77 3.69 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.67 manner. 3.62 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.65 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.58 3.67 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.64 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.73 heard. 3.65 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.63 case without bias. 3.61 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.56 themselves. 3.64 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.75 or her case. 3.66 3.71 Q3. Overall Communications 3.73 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.61 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.70 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.77 understand. 3.73 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.75 can hear what's being said. 3.75 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Christopher C. Zenisek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this interim cycle. Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 12 2013 Judicial Performance Interim Survey ## Page 16 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.69 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.63 3.70 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.55 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.73 proceedings. 3.73 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.72 3.63 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.72 3.68 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.58 little wasted time. 3.57 3.59 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.59 3.53 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.57 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.61 possible outside pressure. 3.61 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.63 relevant facts. 3.59 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.30 Christopher C. Zenisek 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 0.18 Christopher C. Zenisek 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. Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained or not retained in office? Excluding "Don't Know" Respondents 70% Strongly recommend retain 74% 24% Recommend retain 15% Excluding DK Respondents 3% Neither retain nor not retain 4% All Dist Judge Zenisek Judges* 0% Recommend not retain Total Retain 94% 89% 2% Neither 3% 4% Total Not Retain 3% 7% 3% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Including "Don't Know" Respondents 67% Strongly recommend retain 71% 23% Recommend retain 14% 3% Neither retain nor not retain 4% Including DK Respondents All Dist 0% Judge Zenisek Judges* Recommend not retain 2% Total Retain 90% 85% Neither 3% 4% 3% Strongly recommend not retain Total Not Retain 3% 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% Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 42 27 0 0 15 35.7% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 19 8 3 0 8 50.0% Other Attorneys Civil 37 15 10 0 12 44.4% Total Attorneys 99 51 13 0 35 40.7% Non-attorneys Criminal Defendant 104 63 31 2 8 11.0% Civil Litigant 33 17 5 2 9 32.1% Jurors 115 45 12 4 54 52.4% Total Non-attorneys 252 125 48 8 71 34.8% Grand Total: 351 176 61 8 106 36.6% 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 textexpand
## Page 1 State of Colorado Logo COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE TThhee HHoonnoorraabbllee CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 1st Judicial District ## Page 2 March 26, 2014 The Honorable Christopher C. Zenisek Jefferson County Court & Admin. Facility Court Section Golden, CO 80401 Dear Judge Zenisek: 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 Christopher C. Zenisek received an overall combined average grade of 3.55 in the 2014 Judicial Performance Survey. This is calculated by adding the overall average grade received from attorney respondents, 3.41, to the overall average grade received from non-attorney respondents, 3.69, divided by two. The average combined grade for all district judges standing for retention in 2014 is 3.50 (not shown below). Judge Zenisek Average Grades (All Years) Combined Attorney Non-attorney Overall Grade 3.55 3.41 3.69 Sample Size - 74 149 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 Zenisek’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 Zenisek 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 3.52 3.37 35 3.67 71 2013 3.58 3.44 39 3.71 78 Overall 3.55 3.41 74 3.69 149 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 Zenisek’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 Zenisek Judges* Jurors Non-Jurors Average Sample Average Sample Juror Non-Juror Score Size % Score Size % Average Average 3.85 108 72% 3.28 41 28% 3.80 3.28 Table 3 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2 ## Page 5 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AAtoorrnneeyyss RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 7744)) ## Page 6 Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Sample Size = 74 A B C D Fail DK/NA Zenisek Judges* 1. Case Management: 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the case after trial. 46% 25% 3% 3% 0% 23% 3.49 3.44 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 49% 38% 7% 1% 1% 3% 3.36 3.39 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 41% 28% 15% 1% 0% 14% 3.26 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 45% 41% 4% 4% 0% 6% 3.34 3.28 Overall Case Management 3.36 3.35 2. Application and Knowledge of Law: 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 44% 32% 14% 1% 0% 8% 3.29 3.29 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 44% 30% 11% 4% 1% 10% 3.22 3.17 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 31% 14% 11% 1% 0% 42% 3.29 2.96 2d. Issuing consistent sentences when the circumstances are 30% 30% 13% 0% 0% 26% 3.24 3.12 similar. Overall Application and Knowledge of Law 3.26 3.14 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure all participants understand the proceedings. 55% 30% 7% 0% 0% 8% 3.52 3.50 3b. Providing written communications that are clear, thorough 45% 31% 3% 3% 0% 18% 3.45 3.30 and well reasoned. Overall Communications 3.49 3.40 4. Demeanor: 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 66% 27% 3% 1% 0% 3% 3.62 3.47 4b. Treating participants with respect. 76% 17% 4% 0% 0% 3% 3.74 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 63% 17% 11% 6% 0% 3% 3.42 3.28 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 58% 17% 14% 1% 0% 10% 3.45 3.22 Overall Demeanor 3.56 3.34 5. Diligence: 5a. Using good judgment in application of relevant law and 48% 28% 14% 1% 1% 7% 3.29 3.16 rules. 5b. Doing the necessary "homework" and being prepared for 54% 25% 8% 0% 1% 11% 3.46 3.34 cases. 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even when 46% 8% 8% 1% 1% 34% 3.47 3.43 they are complicated and time consuming. Overall Diligence 3.41 3.31 Overall Average Grade: 3.41 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Zenisek Judges* Would you say the judge is: Very biased in favor of the prosecution 9% 11% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 52% 27% Completely neutral 35% 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 4% 5% How strongly do you recommend that the Judge be retained in office, or not be retained in office? Strongly recommend retain 52% 56% Recommend retain 32% 24% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 12% 8% Recommend not retain 4% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 0% 6% Total Retain 84% 80% Neither 12% 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.41 Overall Average Grade 3.30 3.36 Q1. Overall Case Management 3.35 1a. Promptly issuing a decision on the 3.49 case after trial. 3.44 3.36 1b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 3.39 3.26 1c. Promptly ruling on pre-trial motions. 3.30 1d. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.34 3.28 3.26 Q2. Overall App & Knowledge of Law 3.14 3.29 2a. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 3.29 3.22 2b. Basing decisions on evidence and arguments. 3.17 3.29 2c. Willing to reconsider error in fact or law. 2.96 3.24 2d. [Criminal only] Issuing consistent sentences 3.12 when circumstances are similar. 3.49 Q3. Overall Communication 3.40 3.52 3a. Making sure all participants understand 3.50 the proceedings. 3.45 3b. Providing written communications that are 3.30 clear, thorough and well reasoned. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Christopher C. Zenisek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 5 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 9 * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.56 Q4. Overall Demeanor 3.34 3.62 4a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.47 3.74 4b. Treating participants with respect. 3.40 4c. Conducting the courtroom in a 3.42 neutral manner. 3.28 3.45 4d. Consistently applying laws and rules. 3.22 3.41 Q5. Overall Diligence 3.31 5a. Using good judgment in application of 3.29 relevant laws and rules. 3.16 5b. Doing the necessary 'homework' and 3.46 being prepared for cases. 3.34 5c. Being willing to handle cases on the docket even 3.47 when they are complicated and time consuming. 3.43 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 9% Very biased in favor of the prosecution 11% 52% Somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution 27% 35% Completely Neutral 46% 0% Somewhat biased in favor of the defense 9% 0% Very biased in favor of the defense 2% 4% Don't know/not sure 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained or not retained in office? 52% Strongly recommend retain 56% 32% Recommend retain 24% 12% All Dist Neither retain nor not retain 8% Judge Zenisek Judges* Total Retain 84% 80% 4% Neither 12% 8% Recommend not retain 5% Total Not Retain 4% 11% 0% Strongly recommend not retain 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Christopher C. Zenisek * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 7 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 11 SSuurrvveeyy ooff AApeelaattee JJuuddggeess RReeggaarrddiinngg JJuuddggee CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 1166)) ## Page 12 Survey of Appellate Judges Regarding District Judges Average Judge Christopher C. Zenisek All District No Christopher C. Judges* Evaluations of Judge Zenisek = 16 A B C D Fail Grade Zenisek Judge Zenisek in terms of overall performance as a judge. 13% 6% 0% 0% 0% 81% 3.67 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 CChhrriissttoopphheerr CC.. ZZeenniisseekk ((SSaammppllee SSiizzee 114499)) ## Page 14 Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average (0.0 to 4.0 scale) Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Sample Size = 149 A B C D Fail DK/NA Zenisek Judges* 1. Demeanor: 1a. Giving court proceedings a sense of dignity. 80% 11% 4% 0% 3% 1% 3.69 3.72 1b. Treating participants in the case politely and with respect. 84% 12% 1% 0% 3% 1% 3.76 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral manner. 80% 11% 3% 2% 3% 1% 3.66 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human understanding 79% 11% 4% 1% 3% 3% 3.67 3.62 for those who appear before the judge. Overall Demeanor 3.70 3.69 2. Fairness: 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be heard. 82% 11% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3.74 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the case without bias. 79% 10% 4% 1% 3% 3% 3.67 3.66 2c. Treating fairly people who represent themselves. 48% 5% 3% 0% 2% 43% 3.67 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his or her case. 81% 10% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3.72 3.70 Overall Fairness 3.70 3.69 3. Communications: 3a. Making sure participants understand the proceedings, and 80% 11% 5% 0% 3% 1% 3.68 3.74 what's going on in the courtroom. 3b. Using language that everyone can understand. 84% 10% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3.79 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom can hear 85% 10% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3.79 3.78 what's being said. Overall Communications 3.75 3.76 4. Diligence: 4a. Beginning court on time. 80% 13% 3% 1% 1% 3% 3.73 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over proceedings. 80% 12% 3% 0% 1% 3% 3.75 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 76% 12% 3% 1% 1% 7% 3.72 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 79% 9% 3% 1% 2% 5% 3.72 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is little wasted 73% 14% 8% 1% 1% 4% 3.62 3.61 time. Overall Diligence 3.71 3.68 5. Application of Law: 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 69% 12% 5% 1% 4% 9% 3.56 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to possible outside 65% 8% 3% 2% 3% 20% 3.62 3.67 pressure. 5c. Being able to identify and analyze relevant facts. 73% 8% 3% 3% 3% 10% 3.61 3.64 Overall Application of Law 3.60 3.65 Overall Average Grade: 3.69 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Christopher C. All District Zenisek Judges* 6. Average Bias [Please see the questionnaire at the end of report for question wording.] Biased in favor of the prosecution total 8% 8% Competely neutral 90% 86% Biased in favor of the defense total 2% 7% [A positive average indicates bias toward prosecution, and a Average 0.17 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 10% 8% Competely neutral 86% 82% Lenient sentencing total 2% 11% [A positive average indicates sentences are harsh, and a Average 0.34 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 78% 75% Recommend retain 14% 13% Neither recommend nor not recommend retain 3% 6% Recommend not retain 1% 2% Strongly recommend not retain 5% 4% Total Retain 92% 88% Neither 3% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 6% * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report 12 ## Page 16 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.69 Overall Average Grade 3.69 3.70 Q1. Overall Demeanor 3.69 3.69 1a. Giving proceedings a sense of dignity. 3.72 1b. Treating participants politely and with respect. 3.76 3.73 1c. Conducting the courtroom in a neutral 3.66 manner. 3.67 1d. Having a sense of compassion and human 3.67 understanding for those who appear before the judge. 3.62 3.70 Q2. Overall Fairness 3.69 2a. Giving participants an opportunity to be 3.74 heard. 3.70 2b. Treating those involved in the 3.67 case without bias. 3.66 2c. Treats people fairly who represent 3.67 themselves. 3.68 2d. Giving each side enough time to present his 3.72 or her case. 3.70 3.75 Q3. Overall Communications 3.76 3a. Making sure participants understand the 3.68 proceedings, and what's going on in the courtroom. 3.74 3b. Using language that everyone can 3.79 understand. 3.75 3c. Speaking clearly so everyone in the courtroom 3.79 can hear what's being said. 3.78 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Christopher C. Zenisek All District Judges* * Includes only the District judges evaluated during this retention cycle. Judge Christopher C. Zenisek 13 2014 Judicial Performance Survey Report ## Page 17 Judge Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges Average Grades 3.71 Q4. Overall Diligence 3.68 3.73 4a. Beginning court on time. 3.61 4b. Maintaining appropriate control over 3.75 proceedings. 3.76 4c. Setting reasonable schedules for cases. 3.72 3.67 4d. Being prepared for cases. 3.72 3.73 4e. Managing court proceedings so that there is 3.62 little wasted time. 3.61 3.60 Q5. Overall Application of Law 3.65 3.56 5a. Giving reasons for rulings. 3.63 5b. Willing to make decision without regard to 3.62 possible outside pressure. 3.67 5c. Being able to identify and analyze 3.61 relevant facts. 3.64 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Q6 Biased in favor of prosecution/defense. 1 0.17 Christopher C. Zenisek 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 0.34 Christopher C. Zenisek 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. Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Survey of Non-Attorneys Regarding District Judges How strongly do you recommend that Judge Zenisek be retained or not retained in office? 78% Strongly recommend retain 75% 14% Recommend retain 13% 3% Neither retain nor not retain All Dist 6% Judge Zenisek Judges* 1% Total Retain 92% 88% Recommend not retain 2% Neither 3% 6% Total Not Retain 6% 6% 5% Strongly recommend not retain 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Christopher C. Zenisek 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 Zenisek 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 Christopher C. Zenisek Judge Response Counts by Type of Respondent Total No Undeliverable/ Other Non- Coop Role Type Sent Response Not Applicable Responses Completes Rate Attorneys Criminal Defense Attorneys 77 40 12 0 25 38.5% Other Attorneys Criminal 1 1 0 0 0 0.0% Civil Attorneys for Litigants 51 20 14 0 17 45.9% Other Attorneys Civil 83 34 18 0 31 47.7% GAL 1 0 0 0 1 100.0% Total Attorneys 213 95 44 0 74 43.8% Non-attorneys Criminal Law Enforcement 22 10 10 0 2 16.7% Defendant 196 107 73 2 14 11.4% Civil Litigant 98 53 20 3 22 28.2% Other 4 2 2 0 0 0.0% Jurors 205 76 17 4 108 57.4% Employees, including Interpreters 14 9 2 0 3 25.0% Total Non-attorneys 539 257 124 9 149 35.9% Grand Total: 752 352 168 9 223 38.2% 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
- 2026 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Aug 5, 2026
- 2020 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026
- 2014 evaluation on OJPE · scraped Apr 17, 2026