Colorado commissions on judicial performance
Download
1 / 48

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 196 Views
  • Updated On :

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - shona


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Colorado commissions on judicial performance l.jpg

ColoradoCommissions on Judicial Performance

Jane B. Howell

Executive Director

Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation


Historical background l.jpg
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


Authority l.jpg
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


Authority4 l.jpg
Authority

Rules Governing the Commissions on Judicial Performance

  • Promulgated by the State Commission

  • Approved by the Supreme Court


Goals l.jpg
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


Commission information l.jpg
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


Commission membership l.jpg
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)


Commissioner terms l.jpg
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


Officers l.jpg
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


Training l.jpg
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


Role of chief justice and chief judge l.jpg
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


Evaluation process commissioners must l.jpg
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


Evaluation process commissioners may l.jpg
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


Self evaluations l.jpg
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


Courtroom observation l.jpg
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


Review of decisions l.jpg
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


Review of decisions17 l.jpg
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


Trial judge statistics l.jpg
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.)


Appellate judge statistics l.jpg
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


Surveys l.jpg
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


Surveys21 l.jpg
Surveys

  • Non-Attorneys who have appeared before the judge

    • Litigants

    • Jurors

    • Probation Officers

    • Crime victims

    • GALs

    • CASA volunteers

    • Peace officers


Surveys22 l.jpg
Surveys

Appellate Judge

  • Trial judges

  • Attorneys including prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys

  • Other appellate judges and staff attorneys


Surveys23 l.jpg
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


Surveys24 l.jpg
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


Surveys25 l.jpg
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


Surveys26 l.jpg
Surveys

  • Names and addresses of respondents are gathered quarterly from two statewide databases

    • Court

    • CDAC (Colorado District Attorney’s Council)

  • Surveys are mailed quarterly


Surveys27 l.jpg
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


Surveys28 l.jpg
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)


Interview l.jpg
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


Interview30 l.jpg
Interview

  • Docket

  • Case Management (or lack thereof)

  • Pro Se issues

  • Sentencing practices

  • Trial management skills

  • Family law issues

  • Information from public hearings


Recommendations l.jpg
Recommendations

Based on:

  • Interview

  • Courtroom observations

  • Survey data

  • Self-evaluation

  • Review of decisions

  • Any other written or oral information


Recommendations32 l.jpg
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


Recommendations33 l.jpg
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


Recommendations34 l.jpg
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:


Recommendations35 l.jpg
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


Narrative l.jpg
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


Narrative37 l.jpg
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


Narrative38 l.jpg
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


  • Narrative39 l.jpg
    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


    Narrative timeline l.jpg
    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


    Improvement plans l.jpg
    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.


    Complaints l.jpg
    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


    Complaints43 l.jpg
    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


    Complaints44 l.jpg
    Complaints

    • The state commission may not reverse any retention recommendation

    • but may cause a rebuttal to be published with the district commission’s recommendation


    Complaints45 l.jpg
    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


    Confidentiality l.jpg
    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


    After the narratives are made public l.jpg
    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)


    Publication l.jpg
    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


    ad