2006 review of judges’ performance …...the following judges meet judicial performance standards...
TRANSCRIPT
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
208
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
2006 REVIEW OF JUDGES’ PERFORMANCE
The information in this pamphlet is provided to help you decide how you want to vote on the judges listed on the 2006 ballot.
• Information on the Arizona Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges begins on Page 209.• Information on the Pima County Superior Court judges begins on Page 213.• Information on the Maricopa County Superior Court judges begins on Page 217.• A JUDGE CHECKLIST is provided on the back inside cover of the pamphlet, Page 234 & 236.• After reviewing a judge’s information, mark “Yes” or “No” next to the judge’s name on the checklist.• Use the checklist when marking your ballot.• For more information about the judge review process or the JPR Commission, please contact:
Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review1501 West Washington Street
Suite 227Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: www.azjudges.info or www.azjudgereviews.info
Telephone: (602) 364-0098 or (602) 452-3098
This publication can be provided in alternative formats upon request.
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
209Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
HURWITZ, ANDREW D.Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 291Surveys Returned: 117
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 34Surveys Returned: 14
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)97%97%97%97%98%N/A
Score (See Footnote)100%100%N/AN/A
100%N/A
JUSTICE/JUDGE REVIEWS
ALL ARIZONA VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE,COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THEAPPELLATE COURT JUSTICES AND JUDGES
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:Hurwitz, Andrew D.McGregor, Ruth V.
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:Kessler, Donn G.Norris, Patricia K.Portley, Maurice
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO:Brammer, Jr., J. WilliamEckerstrom, Peter J.Espinosa, Philip G.Howard, Joseph W.
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
210
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
McGREGOR, RUTH V.Chief JusticeAppointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 1998
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Chief Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 54Surveys Returned: 30
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 685Surveys Returned: 364
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 124Surveys Returned: 44
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%99%96%98%99%
Score (See Footnote)92%100%98%99%99%N/A
Score (See Footnote)100%100%N/AN/A97%N/A
KESSLER, DONN G.Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
AttorneyResponses
Surveys Distributed: 629Surveys Returned: 144
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 167Surveys Returned: 36
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)95%
100%98%97%97%N/A
Score (See Footnote)100%100%N/AN/A
100%N/A
NORRIS, PATRICIA K.Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 463Surveys Returned: 100
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 123Surveys Returned: 39
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)88%99%98%99%97%N/A
Score (See Footnote)97%
100%N/AN/A93%N/A
MARICOPA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I JUDGES
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
211Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
PORTLEY, MAURICE.Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 663Surveys Returned: 187
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 174Surveys Returned: 75
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)91%98%
100%99%95%N/A
Score (See Footnote)97%
100%N/AN/A98%N/A
BRAMMER, JR., J. WILLIAMAppointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1997
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 525Surveys Returned: 406
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 186Surveys Returned: 155
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)89%97%97%96%96%N/A
Score (See Footnote)99%
100%N/AN/A96%N/A
ECKERSTROM, PETER J.Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 157Surveys Returned: 56
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 18Surveys Returned: 6
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)90%99%
100%100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)88%
100%N/AN/A
100%N/A
PIMA COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II JUDGES
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
212
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
ESPINOSA, PHILIP G.Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1992
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 454Surveys Returned: 318
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 175Surveys Returned: 116
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)88%96%98%98%88%N/A
Score (See Footnote)94%99%N/AN/A94%N/A
HOWARD, JOSEPH W.Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1997
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 438Surveys Returned: 356
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 193Surveys Returned: 137
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)87%98%97%96%96%N/A
Score (See Footnote)99%
100%N/AN/A97%N/A
COCHISE/GILA/GRAHAM/GREENLEE/PINAL/SANTA CRUZ COUNTY VOTERS VOTE ON THE FOLLOWING COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II JUDGE
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
213Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
PIMA JUDGE REVIEWS
ALFRED, MICHAEL D.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1992
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 142Surveys Returned: 51
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 32Surveys Returned: 2
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 17Surveys Returned: 5
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%100%96%98%99%88%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A89%
100%83%83%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - PIMA COUNTY VOTERS ONLY
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
Alfred, Michael D.Borek, Ted B.Browning, Christopher C.Campoy, Hector E.Chandler, TerryCruikshank, Michael Davis, John E.Harrington, Charles V.Kelly, John F.Nichols, Richard D.
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
214
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
BOREK, TED B.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2000
27 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
NOTE: Judge Borek is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 185Surveys Returned: 39
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 118Surveys Returned: 41
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 117Surveys Returned: 43
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%99%95%99%99%98%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%
100%99%
100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%99%
100%N/AN/A
BROWNING, CHRISTOPHER C.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 193Surveys Returned: 26
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 70Surveys Returned: 11
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 16Surveys Returned: 10
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)94%99%
100%96%99%92%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A89%90%90%97%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
CAMPOY, HECTOR E.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 168Surveys Returned: 41
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 198Surveys Returned: 53
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 90Surveys Returned: 34
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)99%
100%100%100%100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%99%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%99%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
215Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
CHANDLER, TERRYAssignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2004
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 98Surveys Returned: 34
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 578Surveys Returned: 119
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%99%
100%99%
100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%97%98%
100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
CRUIKSHANK, MICHAELAssignment During Survey Period: Criminal, Presiding Judge -Criminal DepartmentAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 13
Surveys Returned: 12
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 220
Surveys Returned: 45
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 142
Surveys Returned: 44
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 87
Surveys Returned: 33
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%95%N/A98%
Score (See Footnote)96%97%93%95%100%94%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%98%98%98%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%99%100%99%N/AN/A
DAVIS, JOHN E.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1996
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 240Surveys Returned: 73
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 52Surveys Returned: 5
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 18Surveys Returned: 6
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)95%
100%95%
100%100%95%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%
100%94%85%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
216
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
HARRINGTON, CHARLES V.Assignment During Survey Period: Civil, Presiding Judge – Civil DepartmentAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 8
Surveys Returned: 5
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 207
Surveys Returned: 68
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 56
Surveys Returned: 14
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 17
Surveys Returned: 6
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/A
100%
Score (See Footnote)100%100%95%94%99%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
KELLY, JOHN F.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1988
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 181Surveys Returned: 57
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 46Surveys Returned: 14
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9Surveys Returned: 2
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)92%99%96%99%
100%82%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
NICHOLS, RICHARD D.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1995
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 121Surveys Returned: 33
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 154Surveys Returned: 21
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)94%99%92%95%94%91%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%95%98%
100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
217Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
MARICOPA JUDGE REVIEWS
ACETO, MARK F.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 182Surveys Returned: 47
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 45Surveys Returned: 12
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 35Surveys Returned: 17
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%99%
100%98%
100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - MARICOPA COUNTY VOTERS ONLY
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION’S VOTE ON THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE:
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
Aceto, Mark F.Burke, Edward O.Donahoe, Gary E.Foster, George H.Grant, LarryHicks, Bethany G.Houser, Robert C.Keppel, James H.Mundell, Barbara R.Rea, John C.Swann, Peter B.Willett, Eileen S.
Anderson, Arthur T.Chavez, Harriett E.Downie, Margaret H.Gaines, PendletonGranville, Warren J.Hoag, M. JeanHyatt, Carey S.Lee, RaymondO’Connor, Karen L.Reinstein, Peter C.Talamante, David M.
Barton, Janet E.Dairman, Dennis W.Duncan, Sally S.Gama, J. RichardHauser, Brian R.Holt, Cathy M.Ishikawa, Brian K.Mangum, J. KennethO’Toole, Thomas WRonan, Emmet J.Verdin, Maria del Mar
Budoff, RobertDavis, Norman J.Fenzel, Alfred M.Gaylord, John M.Heilman, Joseph B.Hotham, Jeffrey A.Jones, Michael D.Mroz, Rosa P.Rayes, Douglas L.Schwartz, Jonathan H.Wilkinson, Michael O.
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
218
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
ANDERSON, ARTHUR T.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 152Surveys Returned: 53
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 356Surveys Returned: 35
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)96%97%95%98%95%94%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A89%88%88%92%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
BARTON, JANET E.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”2 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 256Surveys Returned: 58
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 69Surveys Returned: 12
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 42Surveys Returned: 20
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)90%94%88%78%97%89%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A96%
100%96%
100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%99%
100%100%N/AN/A
BUDOFF, ROBERTAssignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 124Surveys Returned: 47
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 347Surveys Returned: 48
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%99%99%99%
100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%95%96%98%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
219Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
BURKE, EDWARD O.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”2 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 167Surveys Returned: 36
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 96Surveys Returned: 8
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 105Surveys Returned: 40
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)81%96%90%85%92%94%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%
100%94%95%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%99%
100%99%N/AN/A
CHAVEZ, HARRIETT E.Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Family/ProbateAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 118Surveys Returned: 40
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 350Surveys Returned: 53
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)96%99%95%99%97%99%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A89%90%88%89%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
DAIRMAN, DENNIS W.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1992
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 127Surveys Returned: 19
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 58Surveys Returned: 5
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 53Surveys Returned: 13
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)93%98%86%95%87%93%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%
100%95%
100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%95%96%97%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
220
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
DAVIS, NORMAN J.Assignment During Survey Period: Family, Presiding Judge – Family DepartmentAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 38
Surveys Returned: 15
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 27
Surveys Returned: 7
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 122
Surveys Returned: 16
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/A
100%
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
DONAHOE, GARY E.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 140Surveys Returned: 38
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 88Surveys Returned: 20
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 83Surveys Returned: 46
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)95%98%96%94%
100%98%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%98%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
DOWNIE, MARGARET H.Assignment During Survey Period: Associate Presiding Judge Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 133
Surveys Returned: 59
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 134
Surveys Returned: 35
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 14
Surveys Returned: 1
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%98%100%97%N/A97%
Score (See Footnote)97%96%96%97%99%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
No Ratings100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
221Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
DUNCAN, SALLY S.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 210Surveys Returned: 64
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 242Surveys Returned: 21
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)95%95%93%92%96%91%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%95%95%98%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
FENZEL, ALFRED M.Assignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 90Surveys Returned: 18
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 114Surveys Returned: 13
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%99%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%95%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
FOSTER, GEORGE H.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 109Surveys Returned: 28
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 272Surveys Returned: 45
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)92%
100%89%
100%93%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%96%97%93%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
222
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
GAINES, PENDLETONAssignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
27 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
NOTE: Judge Gaines is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding.
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 342Surveys Returned: 120
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 112Surveys Returned: 23
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 46Surveys Returned: 20
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%97%98%96%99%96%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%96%99%
100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
GAMA, J. RICHARD.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 263Surveys Returned: 48
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 43Surveys Returned: 7
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 64Surveys Returned: 44
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%
100%95%
100%98%99%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A97%83%
100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%98%N/AN/A
GAYLORD, JOHN M.Assignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
27 Commissioners Voted “Meets”1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 91Surveys Returned: 23
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 681Surveys Returned: 103
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)91%94%94%92%95%98%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A95%91%90%91%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
223Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
GRANT, LARRYAssignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 129Surveys Returned: 40
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 337Surveys Returned: 34
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)91%98%85%96%90%92%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A93%91%90%96%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
GRANVILLE, WARREN J.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 138Surveys Returned: 36
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44Surveys Returned: 6
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44Surveys Returned: 23
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%96%
100%96%99%91%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
HAUSER, BRIAN R.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1991
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 179Surveys Returned: 32
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 93Surveys Returned: 10
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 75Surveys Returned: 22
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)97%
100%100%98%
100%97%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%99%
100%97%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
224
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
HEILMAN, JOSEPH B.Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Family/ProbateAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 71Surveys Returned: 27
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 292Surveys Returned: 20
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)95%93%96%92%96%94%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A90%95%85%95%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
HICKS, BETHANY G.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
27 Commissioners Voted “Meets”1 Commissioner Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 236Surveys Returned: 41
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 83Surveys Returned: 2
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 92Surveys Returned: 53
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)62%94%73%82%87%77%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
HOAG, M. JEANAssignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1996
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 94Surveys Returned: 23
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 136Surveys Returned: 29
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%98%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%99%95%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
225Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
HOLT, CATHY M.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 215Surveys Returned: 33
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 41Surveys Returned: 2
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 80Surveys Returned: 31
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)94%
100%97%98%99%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%95%
100%95%N/AN/A
HOTHAM, JEFFREY A.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1987
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 173Surveys Returned: 42
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 306Surveys Returned: 31
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)93%92%97%90%96%89%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A92%93%90%95%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
HOUSER, ROBERT C.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 325Surveys Returned: 78
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 95Surveys Returned: 24
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 17Surveys Returned: 10
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)99%99%97%98%99%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A96%92%91%97%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
226
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
HYATT, CAREY S.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 20Surveys Returned: 5
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 426Surveys Returned: 49
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)90%96%
100%80%83%75%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A90%92%88%90%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ISHIKAWA, BRIAN K.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 260Surveys Returned: 61
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 24Surveys Returned: 5
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 46Surveys Returned: 15
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%97%98%99%
100%98%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%91%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
JONES, MICHAEL D.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1995
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 150Surveys Returned: 37
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 58Surveys Returned: 12
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 19Surveys Returned: 11
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)99%99%95%
100%96%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A96%92%91%88%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A98%91%98%94%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
227Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
KEPPEL, JAMES H.Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal, Presiding Judge – Criminal DepartmentAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1996
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 50
Surveys Returned: 22
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 206
Surveys Returned: 53
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 6
Surveys Returned: 1
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 148
Surveys Returned: 21
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%99%100%98%N/A97%
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%100%96%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%99%100%100%N/AN/A
LEE, RAYMONDAssignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 173Surveys Returned: 61
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 451Surveys Returned: 76
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)99%98%94%96%99%97%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%97%97%98%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
MANGUM, J. KENNETHAssignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1990
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 98Surveys Returned: 26
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 230Surveys Returned: 29
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
228
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
MROZ, ROSA P.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 143Surveys Returned: 43
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 351Surveys Returned: 45
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)96%96%97%96%97%95%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A96%93%95%97%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
MUNDELL, BARBARA RODRIGUEZAssignment During Survey Period: Presiding JudgeAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1991
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 237
Surveys Returned: 88
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 1
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 34
Surveys Returned: 1
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A96%95%96%95%N/A94%
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
O’CONNOR, KAREN L.Assignment During Survey Period: Civil, Presiding Judge – Probate/Mental Health DepartmentAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 14
Surveys Returned: 11
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 72
Surveys Returned: 25
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 88
Surveys Returned: 13
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 27
Surveys Returned: 8
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/A
100%
Score (See Footnote)86%91%86%94%93%93%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
229Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
O’TOOLE, THOMAS W.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1984
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 201Surveys Returned: 34
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 68Surveys Returned: 5
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 78Surveys Returned: 35
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%95%
100%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%98%99%95%N/AN/A
RAYES, DOUGLAS L.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 204Surveys Returned: 50
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 92Surveys Returned: 10
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 56Surveys Returned: 13
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)98%
100%100%100%97%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
REA, JOHN C.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2004
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 194Surveys Returned: 57
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 501Surveys Returned: 48
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)99%99%99%
100%99%99%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A90%89%92%90%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
230
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
REINSTEIN, PETER C.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 246Surveys Returned: 69
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 58Surveys Returned: 7
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 17Surveys Returned: 7
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)91%96%90%92%97%87%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%94%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
RONAN, EMMET J.Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile, Presiding Judge – Juvenile DepartmentAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2000
28 Commissioners Voted Yes0 Commissioners Voted No
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation
Categories
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 20
Surveys Returned: 9
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 49
Surveys Returned: 11
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 146
Surveys Returned: 24
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 2
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%87%97%92%N/A97%
Score (See Footnote)100%100%100%100%94%100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%99%99%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%90%100%100%N/AN/A
SCHWARTZ, JONATHAN H.Assignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1991
26 Commissioners Voted “Meets”2 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 126Surveys Returned: 29
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 120Surveys Returned: 13
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9Surveys Returned: 4
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)86%94%89%71%77%90%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A99%
100%94%97%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%92%N/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
General Election November 7, 2006
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
231Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
SWANN, PETER B.Assignment During Survey Period: CivilAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2003
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 284Surveys Returned: 84
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 46Surveys Returned: 10
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 18Surveys Returned: 12
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)99%
100%99%
100%99%99%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%98%96%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%100%N/AN/A
TALAMANTE, DAVID M.Assignment During Survey Period: CriminalAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 206Surveys Returned: 34
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 101Surveys Returned: 14
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 95Surveys Returned: 33
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)96%98%98%99%93%99%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%93%98%94%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A
100%100%100%97%N/AN/A
VERDIN, MARIA DEL MARAssignment During Survey Period: JuvenileAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
27 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
NOTE: Judge Verdin is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on her own performance finding.
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 99Surveys Returned: 19
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 303Surveys Returned: 34
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%99%
100%100%97%
100%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A98%
100%100%94%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
ArizonaJudicial Performance Review
JU
DIC
IAL
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E R
EV
IEW
Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
232
General Election November 7, 2006
Issued by: Secretary of State Jan Brewer
FOOTNOTE: The score is the percentage of all evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory", "very good", or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories, indicated by N/A (for example, some judicial assignments do not require jury trials). The JPR Commission votes "Yes" or "No" on whether a judge "MEETS" Judicial Performance Standards, based on the statistical information as well as any other information submitted by the public or the judge. Further information on the judges and justices can be found at each court's website.
WILKINSON, MICHAEL O.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1987
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 142Surveys Returned: 33
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 421Surveys Returned: 32
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)100%100%96%97%99%94%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A95%94%93%96%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
WILLETT, EILEEN S.Assignment During Survey Period: FamilyAppointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1999
28 Commissioners Voted “Meets”0 Commissioners Voted “Does Not Meet”
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 139Surveys Returned: 44
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 249Surveys Returned: 24
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0Surveys Returned: 0
Legal AbilityIntegrityCommunication SkillsJudicial TemperamentAdministrative PerformanceSettlement ActivitiesAdministrative Skills
Score (See Footnote)91%96%93%94%93%90%N/A
Score (See Footnote)N/A98%96%95%95%N/AN/A
Score (See Footnote)N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A