2002 Ballot Propositions

Arizona Secretary of State

Judicial Performance Review - PDF

Election Services

Table of Contents - PDF

General Information

Judicial Performance Review Voter's Guide - PDF

< Back

Next >

Contact Us


 

2002 VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE

REPORT OF THE ARIZONA
COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

1501 West Washington
Suite 227
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/jpr
This publication can be provided in an alternative format upon request.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Court of Appeals Division I Judges

Superior Court in Maricopa County Judges

Superior Court in Pima County Judges

Judge Checklist to Take to Voting Booth

163

164

179

183

A JUDGE CHECKLIST HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON THE BACK COVER OF THIS PAMPHLET TO ASSIST YOU WHEN VOTING FOR THE JUDGES STANDING FOR RETENTION. MARK YOUR VOTE FOR EACH JUDGE ON THE CHECKLIST, REMOVE THE CHECKLIST FROM THE PAMPHLET, AND TAKE THE CHECKLIST WITH YOU TO YOUR VOTING LOCATION ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002.

For More Information Call:

Judicial Performance Review Office

(602) 364-0098

REPORT OF THE ARIZONA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Merit Selection of Judges

In 1974, the voters of Arizona decided that Superior Court judges in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa and Pima) and all appellate judges on Arizona's Supreme Court and Court of Appeals should first be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates recommended by a Commission consisting primarily of public members. Thereafter, during periodic elections, Arizona voters would decide whether to retain those judges. As a v oter , you determine if the judges should remain in office.

One intent of merit selection is to remove politics from the judicial selection process. Another is to avoid the appearance or possibility of compromising judicial impartiality and integrity if judges are forced to solicit campaign contributions from, among others, attorneys who may practice before them, or people who may someday appear before them in court.

High Standards are Set for Arizona's Judiciary

Arizona judges are expected to meet high standards of performance.

  • A judge should administer justice fairly, ethically, uniformly, promptly and efficiently.
  • Judges should be free from personal bias when making decisions and decide cases based on the proper application of law.
  • Judges should issue prompt rulings that can be understood and make decisions that demonstrate competent legal analysis.
  • Judges should act with dignity, courtesy and patience. They should effectively manage their courtroom and the administrative responsibilities of their office.
Arizona's Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Established in 1992 by an amendment to the Arizona Constitution, the majority of the 30-member Commission is drawn from the public-at-large and the other members are attorneys and judges. The Commission establishes performance standards for judges, decides whether or not a judge meets those standards, and communicates its findings to you, the voters.

The Commission collects information on judges' performances by distributing written surveys and conducting public hearings for persons who have first-hand knowledge of the job performance of judges appearing on the 2002 general election ballot. The Commission also accepts written comments regarding the performance of judges.

The responses to the surveys are compiled by an independent data center and the results forwarded to the Commission. Its members review all the information on each judge and vote whether the judge met, or did not meet, judicial performance standards. When the Commission votes, the judges' names are encoded so that members do not know which judge they were voting on until all the votes are counted.

Evaluating Judges' Job Performances

The Commission on Judicial Performance Review has the duty to review judges' performances and to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in making informed decisions regarding retention of merit-selected judges.

Every two years, the job performance of Superior Court judges in Maricopa and Pima Counties is evaluated. The following pages contain evaluations of the job performance of judges who are subject to retention by voters in this election. These evaluations were based on survey results gathered from court staff, jurors, litigants, witnesses, persons representing themselves and attorneys. The score is the total of the evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on the Superior Court judge's bench assignment, the judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). Verbal testimony given at public hearings, as well as signed, written public comments, are considered by the Commission when voting whether a judge "meets" or "does not meet," judicial performance standards.

The job performances of justices of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are evaluated using similar methods on a continuous basis. Surveys are distributed to lawyers and other judges who appear before them. Because appellate courts do not hold trials, there are no litigant, witness or juror responses to consider.

The collection of reliable data is key to the success of this evaluation process and the Commission has confidence in the accuracy of the data it has received. The distribution of survey instruments to certain respondent groups, however, was accomplished in a cost-effective process which may not have been, in all respects, in accordance with scientific procedures.

Commission members reviewed, considered, and weighed carefully, the evaluation data from the survey process, public hearings, and written public comments before deciding whether a judge "meets" or "does not meet," judicial performance standards

ARIZONA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW

PUBLIC MEMBERS

David Armstead, Phoenix

Margaret C. Kenski, Vice Chair, Tucson

Edward Beasley III, Glendale

David L. Hetrick, Tucson

Jessie Lou Blakeslee, Tempe

William R. Martin III, Phoenix

Espinola O. Brunson, Phoenix

Karen E. Osborne, Phoenix

Richard Cosgrove, Tucson

Claire E. Scheuren, Tucson

David A. Garber, Tucson

Dolores L. Sirkis, Tempe

Lola L. Grabb, Tucson

Jacque Steiner, Phoenix

Mary Guerra-Willekens, Phoenix

Charles P. Thompson, Phoenix

Winifred Hershberger, Tucson

 

ATTORNEY MEMBERS

Jeanette M. Boulet, Tucson

Fredrick M. Jones, Phoenix

Andrew M. Federhar, Tucson

Christopher M. Skelly, Chair, Phoenix

Robert C. Houser, Phoenix

George H. Soltero, Tucson

JUDGE MEMBERS

Daniel A. Barker
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One

Deborah Bernini
Pima County Superior Court

Pendleton Gaines
Maricopa County Superior Court

Clark Munger
Pima County Superior Court

Cecil B. Patterson, Jr.
Arizona Court of Appeals Division One

John Pelander
Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two


NOYES, E. G., JR.

Profile: Law degree 1973, University of Wyoming. Served on Maricopa County Superior Court 1983-1992. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I in 1992 and served as Chief Judge from 1999 to 2001.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

 

 

Surveys Returned: 126

*Score

85%

94%

97%

96%

93%

 

 

Surveys Returned: 97

*Score

99%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

TIMMER, ANN A. SCOTT

Profile: Law degree 1985 from Arizona State University. Private practice in commercial and employment litigation. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I in 2000.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

 

 

Surveys Returned: 114

*Score

89%

96%

99%

99%

96%

 

 

Surveys Returned: 72

*Score

99%

100%

N/A

N/A

100%

 

 

 

WEISBERG, SHELDON H.

Profile: Law degree 1974 from Ohio State University. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 1985. Commercial law practice until appointed to Court of Appeals Division I in 1992.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Superior Court Judge Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

 

 

Surveys Returned: 144

 

*Score

89%

97%

97%

96%

94%

 

 

Surveys Returned: 72

 

*Score

94%

100%

N/A

N/A

98%

 

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

ACETO, MARK F.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1980, Arizona State University. Specialized in medical malpractice and personal injury litigation. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1995.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 214

Surveys Returned: 88

*Score

93%

93%

92%

94%

97%

88%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 309

Surveys Returned: 66

*Score

N/A

90%

89%

86%

91%

N/A

ANDERSON, ARTHUR T.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1981, University of Detroit. Specialized in civil litigation and product liability matters. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 179

Surveys Returned: 44

*Score

93%

98%

97%

96%

92%

93%

 

Surveys Sent: 82

Surveys Returned: 30

*Score

N/A

100%

98%

100%

94%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 31

Surveys Returned: 1

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

ARMSTRONG, MARK W.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-- Associate Presiding Judge and Special Assignment Calendar

 

Profile: Law degree 1977, University of Arizona. Judge Advocate USAF 1977-1981 and private practice. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1988.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 164

Surveys Returned: 24

*Score

100%

100%

100%

99%

100%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 3

Surveys Returned: 1

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

BARTON, JANET E.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Juvenile

 

Profile: Law degree 1985, University of Kentucky. Specialized in commercial litigation, and state and local tax cases. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 119

Surveys Returned: 59

*Score

72%

88%

78%

67%

94%

83%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 50

Surveys Returned: 11

*Score

N/A

97%

100%

84%

100%

N/A

BUDOFF, ROBERT

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1971, University of Nebraska. Served 17 years as a Superior Court Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 195

Surveys Returned: 51

*Score

91%

99%

94%

100%

99%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 52

Surveys Returned: 26

*Score

N/A

100%

99%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 36

Surveys Returned: 6

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

BURKE, EDWARD O.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Civil Department Presiding Judge and Civil Calendar

 

Profile: Law degree 1966, Syracuse University. Member of private law firms and served as a Judge Pro Tempore. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 238

Surveys Returned: 88

*Score

99%

98%

96%

95%

99%

98%

 

Surveys Sent: 66

Surveys Returned: 24

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 84

Surveys Returned: 11

*Score

N/A

91%

91%

90%

96%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

CATES, JEFFREY S.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1968, Boston University. Specialized in civil litigation. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1979.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 173

Surveys Returned: 48

*Score

97%

100%

99%

98%

97%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 36

Surveys Returned: 13

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 40

Surveys Returned: 6

*Score

N/A

95%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

DAIRMAN, DENNIS W.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Juvenile

 

Profile: Law degree 1968, University of Arizona. Served 17 years with Public Defender's Office. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1992.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 73

Surveys Returned: 42

*Score

83%

98%

72%

93%

93%

90%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 60

Surveys Returned: 12

*Score

N/A

100%

92%

100%

96%

N/A

DAVIS, NORMAN J.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1975, Arizona State University. Prior to appointment to bench established his own general practice. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1995.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 188

Surveys Returned: 43

*Score

95%

99%

96%

99%

99%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 103

Surveys Returned: 35

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 73

Surveys Returned: 18

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

DONAHOE, GARY E.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Civil
 

Profile: Law degree 1979, University of Arizona. Served 11 years as Superior Court Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 204

Surveys Returned: 73

*Score

94%

96%

96%

96%

97%

89%

 

Surveys Sent: 82

Surveys Returned: 49

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 106

Surveys Returned: 23

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

99%

N/A

DOWNIE, MARGARET H.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Family & Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1984, Georgetown University. Civil Litigation. Served as Superior Court Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 260

Surveys Returned: 94

*Score

94%

94%

91%

94%

98%

85%

 

Surveys Sent: 27

Surveys Returned: 9

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 249

Surveys Returned: 39

*Score

N/A

93%

95%

90%

93%

N/A

FENZEL, ALFRED M.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, Catholic University of America. Deputy County Attorney and Superior Court Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 160

Surveys Returned: 60

*Score

99%

98%

99%

99%

99%

98%

 

Surveys Sent: 92

Surveys Returned: 53

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 54

Surveys Returned: 14

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

GAINES, PENDLETON

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1969, University of Virginia. Specialized in commercial, railroad, and products liability litigation. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 324

Surveys Returned: 130

*Score

98%

99%

96%

98%

100%

98%

 

Surveys Sent: 35

Surveys Returned: 21

*Score

N/A

100%

99%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 24

Surveys Returned: 5

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

GAMA, J. RICHARD

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1972, Arizona State University. Practiced in personal injury, medical negligence, wrongful death litigation. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 131

Surveys Returned: 60

*Score

95%

95%

94%

96%

87%

87%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 203

Surveys Returned: 33

*Score

N/A

89%

85%

86%

86%

N/A

GAYLORD, JOHN M.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1981, Arizona State University. Assistant Attorney General and Marine Corps Attorney. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 295

Surveys Returned: 78

*Score

91%

99%

97%

97%

99%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 2

Surveys Returned: 2

*Score

N/A

94%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

GERST, STEPHEN A.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1966, University of Arizona. Maricopa County Attorney's Office and private practice for 15 years. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1984.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 253

Surveys Returned: 77

*Score

92%

94%

97%

96%

93%

91%

 

Surveys Sent: 10

Surveys Returned: 8

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 7

Surveys Returned: 1

 

 

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

GOTTSFIELD, ROBERT L.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal
 

Profile: Law degree 1960, Cornell University. Private practice 1963-1980. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1980.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 210

Surveys Returned: 68

*Score

89%

95%

86%

91%

95%

96%

 

Surveys Sent: 150

Surveys Returned: 47

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 53

Surveys Returned: 10

 

 

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

94%

N/A

GRANVILLE, WARREN J.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Family & Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1979, Arizona State University. Assistant Attorney General 20 years. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 139

Surveys Returned: 62

*Score

93%

95%

92%

94%

94%

91%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 489

Surveys Returned: 29

*Score

N/A

98%

96%

97%

95%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

HAUSER, BRIAN R.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Juvenile

 

Profile: Law degree 1977, Temple University. Worked with Maricopa County Attorney and Attorney General's Offices. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1991.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 128

Surveys Returned: 63

*Score

98%

99%

100%

93%

94%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 71

Surveys Returned: 23

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

HEILMAN, JOSEPH B.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1977, Arizona State University. Civil litigation practice; Deputy County Attorney. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 200

Surveys Returned: 50

*Score

99%

100%

99%

98%

99%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 55

Surveys Returned: 30

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 39

Surveys Returned: 10

 

 

*Score

N/A

95%

100%

97%

96%

N/A

HICKS, BETHANY G.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period--Presiding Judge Family Court Department.
 

Profile: Law degree 1984, Arizona State University. Private practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. Served as Superior Court Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court in 1999..

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 90

Surveys Returned: 38

*Score

94%

92%

92%

90%

96%

84%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 156

Surveys Returned: 26

*Score

N/A

92%

88%

90%

88%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

HOAG, M. JEAN

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Southeast Presiding Judge & Special Assignment Calendar
 

Profile: Law degree 1982, William Mitchell College of Law. Felony Prosecutor Maricopa County; Assistant State Attorney General assigned to Organized Crime Unit. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1996.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 127

Surveys Returned: 37

*Score

85%

95%

89%

85%

94%

81%

 

Surveys Sent: 54

Surveys Returned: 45

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 120

Surveys Returned: 23

 

*Score

N/A

94%

91%

91%

95%

N/A

HOLT, CATHY M.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1985, University of Arizona. Practiced in commercial litigation, creditors' rights and bankruptcy. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 214

Surveys Returned: 84

*Score

89%

97%

91%

96%

95%

81%

 

Surveys Sent: 53

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

0%

0%

0%

0%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 68

Surveys Returned: 43

*Score

N/A

100%

95%

98%

93%

N/A

HOTHAM, JEFFREY A.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal
 

Profile: Law degree 1975, Arizona State University. Assistant Bureau Chief for Major Felony Bureau. Prosecuted over 40 murder cases, including 6 death penalty trials. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1987.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 228

Surveys Returned: 68

*Score

90%

86%

90%

83%

97%

85%

 

Surveys Sent: 102

Surveys Returned: 42

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

96%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 66

Surveys Returned: 11

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

HYATT, CAREY S.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1985, St. John's University. Superior Court Commissioner 5 years; staff attorney Court of Appeals and Deputy County Attorney. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 148

Surveys Returned: 63

*Score

90%

92%

87%

82%

92%

84%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 193

Surveys Returned: 21

*Score

N/A

78%

89%

74%

87%

N/A

ISHIKAWA, BRIAN K.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree Arizona State University. Practiced as a civil litigator and criminal prosecutor specializing in crimes against children. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1995.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 139

Surveys Returned: 58

*Score

93%

98%

93%

96%

90%

96%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 88

Surveys Returned: 12

*Score

N/A

99%

100%

95%

96%

N/A

JONES, MICHAEL D.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Special Assignment

 

Profile: Law degree Arizona State University. Superior Court Commissioner, Tucson Asst. City Prosecutor, Asst. State Attorney General. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1995.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 78

Surveys Returned: 36

*Score

87%

92%

86%

94%

95%

95%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 38

Surveys Returned: 4

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

KAMIN, ALAN S.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Juvenile
 

Profile: Law degree Stanford University. Private practice 1968-1975. Assistant Attorney General 1975-1983. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1983.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 128

Surveys Returned: 53

*Score

82%

88%

74%

68%

67%

71%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 29

Surveys Returned: 29

*Score

N/A

100%

94%

97%

91%

N/A

KEPPEL, JAMES H.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree University of Arizona. Bureau Chief of Maricopa County Attorney's Office. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1996.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 191

Surveys Returned: 61

*Score

100%

100%

99%

97%

100%

99%

 

Surveys Sent: 52

Surveys Returned: 17

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 57

Surveys Returned: 7

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

MANGUM, J. KENNETH

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1972, University of Chicago. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. Practiced in personal injury and commercial law. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1991.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 139

Surveys Returned: 53

*Score

96%

99%

94%

99%

91%

94%

 

Surveys Sent: 18

Surveys Returned: 8

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 26

Surveys Returned: 15

*Score

N/A

98%

93%

99%

97%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

MUNDELL, BARBARA R.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Presiding Judge Probate/Mental Health Department, Civil Bench

 

Profile: Law degree Arizona State University. Practiced in worker's comp and Social Security law. Administrative Law Judge for Industrial Commission. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1991.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 91

Surveys Returned: 45

*Score

89%

94%

85%

93%

97%

85%

 

Surveys Sent: 9

Surveys Returned: 8

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 51

Surveys Returned: 26

*Score

N/A

100%

97%

98%

96%

N/A

O'CONNOR, KAREN L.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1984, John Marshall Law School. Practiced in civil and municipal law. Chief of Family Violence Bureau, Maricopa County Attorney's Office. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 181

Surveys Returned: 75

*Score

96%

95%

91%

91%

97%

93%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 306

Surveys Returned: 20

*Score

N/A

84%

89%

86%

82%

N/A

O'TOOLE, THOMAS W.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Presiding Judge Criminal Department, Criminal Bench

 

Profile: Law degree 1966, University of Arizona. Federal Public Defender for Dist. of Arizona 1976-84. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1984.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 230

Surveys Returned: 55

*Score

96%

93%

95%

89%

93%

87%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

PADISH, JAMES E.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1981, John Marshall Law School. Maricopa County Public Defender. Executive Director, Phoenix Public Defender Program. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 200

Surveys Returned: 58

*Score

94%

92%

92%

88%

98%

95%

 

Surveys Sent: 41

Surveys Returned: 11

*Score

N/A

99%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 88

Surveys Returned: 35

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

98%

100%

N/A

PORTLEY, MAURICE

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree University of Michigan. Army Judge Advocate's Corps 1979-1984; private practice. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1991.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 182

Surveys Returned: 59

*Score

95%

97%

94%

95%

95%

91%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 149

Surveys Returned: 20

*Score

N/A

96%

95%

91%

99%

N/A

RAYES, DOUGLAS L.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1978, Arizona State University. Army Judge Advocate's Corps 1979-83. Private practice in civil litigation. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 231

Surveys Returned: 87

*Score

99%

98%

97%

99%

99%

97%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 316

Surveys Returned: 27

*Score

N/A

91%

88%

81%

88%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

REINSTEIN, PETER C.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, Indiana University. Practiced in commercial litigation. Court Commissioner 1985-88. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 302

Surveys Returned: 78

*Score

95%

95%

96%

87%

97%

96%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 12

Surveys Returned: 3

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

75%

100%

N/A

RONAN, EMMET J.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Juvenile

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, Arizona State University. Represented defendants in complex criminal and death penalty litigation during 16 years with Maricopa Public Defender. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 81

Surveys Returned: 49

*Score

98%

98%

96%

98%

91%

98%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 31

Surveys Returned: 6

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

92%

N/A

SCHWARTZ, JONATHAN H.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1973, University of Michigan. As an Assistant Attorney General, prosecuted land fraud and organized crime cases. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1991.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 347

Surveys Returned: 109

*Score

95%

94%

92%

93%

95%

97%

 

Surveys Sent: 9

Surveys Returned: 4

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 21

Surveys Returned: 9

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

SCOTT, LINDA K.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Presiding Judge Juvenile Court, Juvenile Bench

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, Arizona State University. Practiced in personal injury litigation and juvenile law. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1984.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 73

Surveys Returned: 45

*Score

100%

97%

100%

98%

98%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 10

Surveys Returned: 3

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

TALAMANTE, DAVID M.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1978, University of Arizona. Practiced in real estate and construction. Chief Counsel for AG's Transportation Section; Assistant Real Estate Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1998.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 159

Surveys Returned: 56

*Score

95%

98%

94%

95%

98%

95%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 262

Surveys Returned: 43

*Score

N/A

98%

98%

95%

93%

N/A

TOPF, WILLIAM L., III

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, Arizona State University. Director of ASU Criminal Defense Internship, Superior Court Commissioner and Maricopa County Public Fiduciary. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1991.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 182

Surveys Returned: 51

*Score

97%

100%

99%

98%

97%

95%

 

Surveys Sent: 27

Surveys Returned: 15

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 141

Surveys Returned: 25

*Score

N/A

93%

96%

95%

91%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

VERDIN, MARIA DEL MAR

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Family

 

Profile: Law degree 1989, University of Arizona. Superior Court Commissioner, Asst. Attorney General, and Maricopa Public Defender representing juveniles. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 169

Surveys Returned: 62

*Score

96%

97%

97%

95%

96%

90%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 140

Surveys Returned: 9

*Score

N/A

86%

88%

77%

96%

N/A

WILKINSON, MICHAEL O.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Special Assignment

 

Profile: Law degree 1972, Wayne State University. Deputy County Attorney 12 years prosecuting felonies and private practice. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1987.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 186

Surveys Returned: 60

*Score

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

97%

 

Surveys Sent: 65

Surveys Returned: 36

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 44

Surveys Returned: 10

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

WILLETT, EILEEN S.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1984, Rutgers. Administrative Law Judge Industrial Commission and Superior Court Commissioner. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 138

Surveys Returned: 42

*Score

91%

100%

96%

100%

99%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 68

Surveys Returned: 40

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

97%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 52

Surveys Returned: 16

*Score

N/A

92%

94%

100%

93%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

WILLRICH, PENNY L.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1982, Antioch-District of Columbia School of Law. Superior Court Commissioner. Asst. Dir. Children & Family Services. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1999.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 134

Surveys Returned: 41

*Score

77%

96%

82%

80%

83%

77%

 

Surveys Sent: 55

Surveys Returned: 22

*Score

N/A

100%

99%

100%

98%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 35

Surveys Returned: 1

*Score

N/A

89%

0%

75%

33%

N/A

YARNELL, MICHAEL A.

Bench Assignment Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree University of Illinois. Practiced in commercial litigation. Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court 1991.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 183

Surveys Returned: 52

*Score

91%

95%

94%

80%

100%

89%

 

Surveys Sent: 58

Surveys Returned: 33

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

95%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 69

Surveys Returned: 12

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

ALFRED, MICHAEL D.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, University of Arizona. Practiced in private and public practices for 11 years; full time Judge Pro Tem 1985-92. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1992.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 159

Surveys Returned: 62

*Score

93%

98%

91%

89%

92%

94%

 

Surveys Sent: 77

Surveys Returned: 28

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 45

Surveys Returned: 7

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

BOREK, TED B.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1972, University of Arizona. Army Judge Advocate General's Corps 1973-90. U.S. Attorney's Office 1990-2000. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 201

Surveys Returned: 110

*Score

94%

99%

96%

99%

99%

98%

 

Surveys Sent: 38

Surveys Returned: 23

*Score

N/A

98%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 59

Surveys Returned: 16

*Score

N/A

99%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

BROWNING, CHRISTOPHER C.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Presiding Judge Civil Bench

 

Profile: Law degree 1981, University of Arizona. Private practice in civil litigation. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1998.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 177

Surveys Returned: 110

*Score

97%

97%

95%

98%

96%

97%

 

Surveys Sent: 47

Surveys Returned: 22

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 41

Surveys Returned: 14

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

CAMPOY, HECTOR E.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Juvenile

 

Profile: Law degree 1980, University of Michigan. Private practice in criminal, civil and domestic law; full time Pima County Commissioner 1991-2000. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 2000.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 103

Surveys Returned: 40

*Score

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 229

Surveys Returned: 84

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

99%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

CRUICKSHANK, MICHAEL

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Juvenile

 

Profile: Law degree 1984, University of Arizona. Private practice, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima Legal Defender's Office, full time Commissioner. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1998.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 103

Surveys Returned: 37

*Score

97%

98%

97%

96%

99%

88%

 

Surveys Sent: 0

Surveys Returned: 0

*Score

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 165

Surveys Returned: 57

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

DAVIS, JOHN E.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1975, University of Arizona. Private practice, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Attorney General's Office, US Attorney's Office. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1996.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 163

Surveys Returned: 62

*Score

90%

91%

86%

85%

92%

83%

 

Surveys Sent: 155

Surveys Returned: 71

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 117

Surveys Returned: 24

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

98%

N/A

HARRINGTON, CHARLES V.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1984, Gonzaga University. Private practice civil litigation. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1999.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 152

Surveys Returned: 118

*Score

96%

97%

93%

92%

96%

84%

 

Surveys Sent: 34

Surveys Returned: 16

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 77

Surveys Returned: 24

*Score

N/A

100%

95%

98%

97%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 

KELLY, JOHN F.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Civil

 

Profile: Law degree 1974, University of Arizona. Private practice; Assistant Attorney General 1978-88. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1988.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 146

Surveys Returned: 97

*Score

88%

96%

89%

97%

95%

86%

 

Surveys Sent: 32

Surveys Returned: 10

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 61

Surveys Returned: 17

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

NICHOLS, RICHARD D.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Criminal

 

Profile: Law degree 1977, University of Arizona. Pima County Attorney's Office 1970-1990; full time Judge Pro Tempore 1990-1995. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1995.

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 144

Surveys Returned: 64

*Score

92%

92%

86%

91%

92%

85%

 

Surveys Sent: 153

Surveys Returned: 63

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 108

Surveys Returned: 19

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

RODRIGUEZ, LINA S.

Bench Assignment During Survey Period-Arbitration

 

Profile: Law degree 1977, University of Arizona. Private practice 1977-1984. Appointed to Pima County Superior Court 1995.

 

Evaluation Category

Attorney Responses

Juror Responses

Litigant/Witness/Pro Per Responses

 

Legal Ability

Integrity

Communication Skills

Judicial Temperament

Administrative Performance

Settlement Activities

 

Surveys Sent: 201

Surveys Returned: 137

*Score

97%

97%

97%

97%

98%

96%

 

Surveys Sent: 39

Surveys Returned: 26

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

Surveys Sent: 62

Surveys Returned: 15

*Score

N/A

100%

100%

100%

100%

N/A

 

*NOTE: The score is the total of evaluators who rated the judge "satisfactory" or "very good" or "superior" in each of the Commission's evaluation categories. Depending on bench assignment, a judge may not have responses in certain categories (indicated by N/A). The JPR Commission votes on whether a judge "MEETS" or "DOES NOT MEET" Judicial Performance Standards.

 


BETSEY BAYLESS
Arizona Secretary of State
Disclaimer

Report of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
� September 2002