1 / 48

Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance

Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance . Jane B. Howell Executive Director Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation. Historical Background. 1966 Constitutional Amendment

shona
Download Presentation

Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ColoradoCommissions on Judicial Performance Jane B. Howell Executive Director Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation

  2. Historical Background 1966 Constitutional Amendment • abolished partisan elections of judges and established a new merit selection system for the nomination, appointment, and retention of judges • Aims to strike a balance between an independent judiciary while maintaining public accountability

  3. Authority 1988 Statute (13-5.5-101 et seq.) • General Assembly created Commissions on Judicial Performance to complement the merit selection process • From 1966 to 1990, judges were on the ballot for retention, but voters did not have information on their performance

  4. Authority Rules Governing the Commissions on Judicial Performance • Promulgated by the State Commission • Approved by the Supreme Court

  5. Goals • Provide voters with fair,responsibleand constructive evaluations of trial and appellate judges and justices seeking retention AND • Provide judges and justices with information to help improve their professional skills as judicial officers

  6. CommissionInformation • One commission in each judicial district (22) • Evaluates district and county judges • One state commission • Evaluates Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges • Promulgates Rules

  7. CommissionMembership • 10 NONPARTISAN members • 6 non-attorneys • 4 attorneys • 4 appointing authorities • Governor (1 attorney and 2 non-attorneys) • Chief Justice (1 attorney and 2 non-attorneys) • Senate Pres. (1 attorney and 1 non-attorney) • Speaker (1 attorney and 1 non-attorney)

  8. Commissioner Terms • Four-year terms • Maximum of 2 terms • If filling a vacancy, commissioner is eligible to serve balance of term plus two full terms • Terms expire on Nov. 30 of odd years • Appointing authority must appoint within 45 days of vacancy or State Commission makes the appointment

  9. Officers • Commissions shall elect a chair and vice-chair • One of whom is an attorney • One of whom is a non-attorney • Two year terms expiring on Nov. 30 of each odd numbered year

  10. Training • All state and district commissioners must attend a training session every 2 years • A commissioner who fails to meet the training requirement shall recuse from the consideration and vote on any matter involving the evaluation of a justice/judge • Unless excused by a 2/3 vote

  11. Role of Chief Justice and Chief Judge • The commission meets with the Chief Justice/Judge prior to beginning any evaluations for an overview of the court • The meeting shall not concern the evaluation of any justice/judge’s performance, unless the commission had previously made a recommendation for improvement for a justice/judge being evaluated that year

  12. Evaluation ProcessCommissioners must: All Evaluation Criteria is of equal weight Commissioners must: • Consider judge’s self-evaluation • Observe 3 judges in the courtroom • Review decisions/opinions • Review judge statistics • Consider survey results • interveiw

  13. Evaluation ProcessCommissioners may: Commissioners may: • Conduct public hearings • Consider oral or written information from any person who has appeared before the judge during the previous year

  14. Self-Evaluations • Requires the justice or judge to conduct an appraisal of his or her performance • Provides information to the commission that may be used during the interview • Information is confidential and cannot be quoted in the narrative

  15. Courtroom Observation Each commissioner shall make unannounced visits to the courtroom to observe at least 3 justices/judges • To become knowledgeable of the responsibilities and duties of justices and judges • To observe demeanor, control over judicial proceedings, timeliness, communication skills, preparation, docket management

  16. Review of Decisions • District commissioners shall review 3 decisions of county and district judges for: • Thoroughness of findings • Clarity of expression • Logical reasoning • Application of law to the facts

  17. Review of Decisions • State commission reviews 10* opinions of appellate judges for: • Adherence to the record • Clarity of expression • Logical reasoning • Application of the law to the facts presented * • 5 opinions, civil and criminal, including one separate concurrence or dissent • 5 other opinions from list of all opinions authored

  18. TrialJudge Statistics • District commissions review information on each trial judge about: • caseload and case types • Open case reports • Case aging reports • # of jury trials and jury trial days • # of court trials and court trial days • Sentence modifications (18-1.3-406 C.R.S.)

  19. Appellate Judge Statistics • State commission reviews information on each appellate judge about: • Number of cases assigned to the justice/judge • Length of time justice/judge has had case

  20. Surveys Trial Judge • Appellate judges survey district judges • District judges survey county judges • Attorneys who have appeared before the judge • Prosecutors • Public defenders • Private attorneys

  21. Surveys • Non-Attorneys who have appeared before the judge • Litigants • Jurors • Probation Officers • Crime victims • GALs • CASA volunteers • Peace officers

  22. Surveys Appellate Judge • Trial judges • Attorneys including prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys • Other appellate judges and staff attorneys

  23. Surveys Critera on which judges are evaluated: • Integrity • Control over judicial proceedings • Attentiveness • Punctuality • Legal Ability • Knowledge and understanding of substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law

  24. Surveys • Communication skills • Prompt case disposition • Preparation • Docket management • Administrative skills • Effectiveness in working with participants in the judicial process • Service to the legal profession and the public

  25. Surveys Also survey on whether the judge: • Is courteous • Treats all parties who appear in the courtroom equally • Provides clear written and oral decisions • Displays appropriate demeanor

  26. Surveys • Names and addresses of respondents are gathered quarterly from two statewide databases • Court • CDAC (Colorado District Attorney’s Council) • Surveys are mailed quarterly

  27. Surveys • Survey results (reports) include statistical analysis, verbatim comments from survey respondents (confidential), and ranking each judge with other judges in the same judicial district and statewide

  28. Surveys Retention judges: • Survey reports delivered to commissioners by May 1 of retention year Non-retention judges: • Survey reports delivered in off year (interim reports)

  29. Interview Questions typically derive from: • Judge’s self-evaluation • Courtroom observation • Survey data and comments • Review of opinions/decisions • Any other written or oral information

  30. Interview • Docket • Case Management (or lack thereof) • Pro Se issues • Sentencing practices • Trial management skills • Family law issues • Information from public hearings

  31. Recommendations Based on: • Interview • Courtroom observations • Survey data • Self-evaluation • Review of decisions • Any other written or oral information

  32. Recommendations Recommendation of: • Retain • Do Not Retain • No Opinion • Only given if the commission is equally divided • Not counted as for or against an individual

  33. Recommendations A commission shall strongly consider a recommendation of “retain” for any justice or judge who receives an average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for the questionnaire responses • unless the other evaluation information indicates a significant performance problem, such as poor judicial temperament

  34. Recommendations A commission shall strongly consider a recommendation of “do notretain” for any justice or judge who receives less than an average of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale unless:

  35. Recommendations • Docket or caseload cannot be appropriately managed due to nature or high number of cases (provisional judge) • Commission believes that with additional experience on the bench and a commitment to improve judicial skills, the judge should be given more time • Judge must agree to be placed on an improvement plan

  36. Narrative • May include the following sources of information: • Courtroom observation • Review of opinions/decisions • Interviews • Information from public hearings • Survey data • Summary of survey comments

  37. Narrative 5 short paragraphs – 500 words • Retention recommendation • Biographical data • Undergraduate and law schools • Educational degrees • Professional association activities • Recent awards and honors • Volunteer or community work

  38. Narrative • Information specific to work • And any other previous substantial legal or public employment • Description of performance • Including any areas of exemplary or distinguishing performance • And any areas of significantly poor performance • Additional information • Including description of groups of respondents surveyed • Percentage of responses received recommending retention and non-retention

  39. Narrative Any commission issuing a “DoNot Retain” recommendation shall, at the justice or judge’s request, include a response of not more than 100 words

  40. Narrative Timeline • The commission must deliver the draft narrative to the judge within 10 days of the interview • Judge has 10 days to respond in writing requesting an additional interview (commission may also request additional interview) • Additional interview must be held within 10 days of the request • Commission must deliver revised draft, if one, to the judge within 10 days of the additional interview

  41. Improvement Plans • Commission identifies area(s) of improvement in writing • Commission notifies Jane Howell • Jane Howell notifies the judicial educator at the State Court Administrator’s Office • Judicial Educator, chief judge, and judge develop an improvement plan • Commission and Jane Howell are no longer involved • Contents of the plan are confidential • Fact that there is an improvement plan may be recited in the narrative.

  42. Complaints Any commissioner or judge may file a written complaint with the state commission for any alleged violation of the rules or statutes governing judicial performance commissions

  43. Complaints The state commission shall: • provide a copy to the chair of the district commission, who shall provide a written response • make an independent review and provide its determination to the district commission along with remedial instructions

  44. Complaints • The state commission may not reverse any retention recommendation • but may cause a rebuttal to be published with the district commission’s recommendation

  45. Complaints • or direct a district commission to revise a narrative within 10 days • Should the district commission fail to satisfactorily comply, the state commission may, in its discretion, rewrite the narrative

  46. Confidentiality • Survey comments • Commission members and staff shall maintain confidentiality with regard to evaluation materials and communications • All interviews or deliberations directly concerning the retention of any judge • All oral and written documentation received by the commission • Content of Improvement Plans

  47. After the narratives are made public The commission’s designated spokesperson may publicly discuss: • Recommendation • Narrative Survey data • Information from public hearings • Recommendation for an improvement plan (not the contents)

  48. Publication • The day after judges must declare intent to stand for retention with the Secretary of State, narratives/recommendations/survey stats are posted at www.cojudicialperformance.com and www.courts.state.co.us • Linked to www.coloradobluebook.com, www.leg.state.co.com and www.cobar.org/ • Issue 250+ press releases • Published in the Legislative Council’s Blue Book

More Related