Part three - 2012 Judicial Performance Review
Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review
WHO JUDGES THE JUDGES? YOU DO! WE CAN HELP.
Voters! Finish the Ballot! Use the following summary and report by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR) to Finish the Ballot! The JPR Commission was established by voters to evaluate judges' performance during retention elections. While judges initially are appointed, this report can help you decide whether these judges meet judicial performance standards and should be retained. Which judges appear on your ballot depends on your county and the court on which the judge serves. By using this report to finish your ballot, you will help ensure Arizona's strong and impartial judiciary!
Some Arizona judges are appointed through Merit Selection and rated by the JPR Commission.
Merit Selection and Retention. In 1974, Arizona voters decided that for Arizona's Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, and Superior Courts in counties with populations over 250,000 (currently Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal) judges would be appointed by the Governor from a list of qualified candidates. The Arizona Constitution directs commissions to nominate candidates based primarily on their merit, with consideration given to the diversity of Arizona's population. Arizona voters then periodically vote whether to retain these judges as their terms expire. This system is known as Merit Selection and Retention.
JPR Commission Evaluations & Report. Created by a constitutional amendment, the 30-member JPR Commission conducts standards-based performance evaluations of judges. Most of the JPR Commissioners are public members, not lawyers or judges. JPR reports its results to the public. This report provides JPR Commission findings, survey results, and states whether each judge in a retention election "meets" or "fails to meet" judicial performance standards.
Judicial Performance Standards
The JPR Commission evaluates each judge up for retention election to assess whether the judge:
· Administers justice fairly, ethically, uniformly, promptly and efficiently;
· Is free from personal bias when making decisions and decides cases based on the proper application of law;
· Issues prompt rulings that can be understood and makes decisions that demonstrate competent legal analysis;
· Acts with dignity, courtesy and patience; and
· Effectively manages his or her courtroom and the administrative responsibilities of the office.
Public Input Throughout the Process. This year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input from citizens who have had direct experience with judges and made its decisions using that input. In 2011, 67,000 surveys on judges were distributed to attorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses. The JPR Commission held public hearings open to anyone wishing to speak about the judges up for retention this year. The JPR Commission accepts signed, written comments about merit-appointed judges at any time.
Use JPR Results and Checklist. Every voter can take an active role in this judicial review process. Use this JPR summary and report to guide your votes for judges up for retention. After reviewing a judge's information, mark "Yes" or "No" next to the judge's name on the Judges Checklist tear-off back cover of this pamphlet. Refer to your checklist to Finish Your Ballot!
Visit www.AZJudges.info for more information.
Contact the Commission on Judicial Performance Review: (602) 452-3311
or email [email protected]
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE AND COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE APPELLATE COURT JUSTICES AND JUDGES THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT:
A. John Pelander, III
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE:
Margaret H. Downie
Donn G. Kessler
Patricia K. Norris
Maurice Portley
Peter B. Swann
COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO:
Peter J. Eckerstrom
Philip G. Espinosa
Virginia C. Kelly
Joseph W. Howard
PELANDER, III, A. JOHN Justice Appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court: 2009
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 333 Surveys Returned: 97
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 12 Surveys Returned: 4 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 92 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
DOWNIE, MARGARET H. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2008
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 837 Surveys Returned: 184
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 182 Surveys Returned: 81 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 94 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 94 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 97 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 98 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 96 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
KESSLER, DONN G. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,392 Surveys Returned: 187
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 345 Surveys Returned: 90 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 91 percent
Attorney Responses 95 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 97 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 96 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
NORRIS, PATRICIA K. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,305 Surveys Returned: 197
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 322 Surveys Returned: 72
Note: Judge Norris is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on her own performance finding. |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 96 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 96 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 94 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 98 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
PORTLEY, MAURICE Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2003
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,416 Surveys Returned: 192
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 340 Surveys Returned: 74 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 88 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 94 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 97 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
SWANN, PETER B. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division I: 2008
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 913 Surveys Returned: 238
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 186 Surveys Returned: 79 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 85 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 93 percent
Attorney Responses 96 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 94 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
ECKERSTROM, PETER J. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2003
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 967 Surveys Returned: 218
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 333 Surveys Returned: 93 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 76 percent
Attorney Responses 95 percent
Attorney Responses 94 percent
Attorney Responses 97 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 98 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
ESPINOSA, PHILIP G. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1992
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,006 Surveys Returned: 215
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 328 Surveys Returned: 103 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 91 percent
Attorney Responses 95 percent
Attorney Responses 92 percent
Attorney Responses 94 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney ResponsesNot Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 92 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 95 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 86 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
KELLY, VIRGINIA C. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 2009
28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
2 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 352 Surveys Returned: 153
Superior Court Judge Responses Surveys Distributed: 122 Surveys Returned:101 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 91 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 94 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 93 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 93 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
HOWARD, JOSEPH W. Appointed to Court of Appeals Division II: 1997
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 1,142 Surveys Returned: 197
Superior Court Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 390 Surveys Returned: 156 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Scores
Attorney Responses 90 percent
Attorney Responses 92 percent
Attorney Responses 97 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 97 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Scores
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable
Superior Court Judge Responses 100 percent
Superior Court Judge Responses Not Applicable |
PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - PINAL COUNTY VOTERS ONLY RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE PINAL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
J. Rudy Georgini
Boyd T. Johnson
Stephen F. McCarville
Robert Carter Olson |
GEORGINI, J. RUDY Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Criminal Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2006
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
Attorney Responses Surveys Distributed: 87 Surveys Returned: 28
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Surveys Distributed: 77 Surveys Returned: 26
Juror Responses Surveys Distributed: 43 Surveys Returned: 11 |
Judicial Performance Standards Evaluation Categories |
Scores |
Scores |
Scores |
Legal Ability Score (See Footnote)
Integrity Score (See Footnote)
Communication Skills Score (See Footnote)
Judicial Temperament Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Performance Score (See Footnote)
Settlement Activities Score (See Footnote)
Administrative Skills Score (See Footnote) |
Attorney Responses 96 percent
Attorney Responses 99 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses 98 percent
Attorney Responses 100 percent
Attorney Responses Not Applicable |
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Not Applicable
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 100 percent
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 100 percent
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 99 percent
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses 95 percent
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Not Applicable
Litigant, Witness, ProPer Responses Not Applicable |
Juror Responses Not Applicable
Juror Responses 100 percent
Juror Responses 100 percent
Juror Responses 100 percent
Juror Responses 100 percent
Juror Responses Not Applicable
Juror Responses Not Applicable |
JOHNSON, BOYD T.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil/Criminal Presiding
Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 1996 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 11
Surveys Returned: 5 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 75
Surveys Returned: 28 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 40
Surveys Returned: 3 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 58
Surveys Returned: 35 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
95 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
100 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
100 percent
99 percent
90 percent
96 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
96 percent
99 percent
93 percent
89 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MCCARVILLE, STEPHEN F.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family Presiding
Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 4
Surveys Returned: 2 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 72
Surveys Returned: 25 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 291
Surveys Returned: 29 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
100 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
99 percent
96 percent
98 percent
95 percent
93 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
94 percent
91 percent
86 percent
88 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
OLSON, ROBERT CARTER
Assignment During Survey Period: Pinal County Presiding Judge
Elected to Pinal County Superior Court: 2007 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Note: Judge Olson is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding. |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge
Responses
Surveys Distributed: 42
Surveys Returned: 16 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 207
Surveys Returned: 60 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 51
Surveys Returned: 13 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
96 percent
96 percent
95 percent
93 percent
Not Applicable
95 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
98 percent
95 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
97 percent
92 percent
96 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
|
PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - PIMA COUNTY VOTERS ONLY |
|
|
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES |
|
|
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: |
|
|
Karen S. Adam
Gus Aragon, Jr.
Deborah Bernini
Kyle A. Bryson
Carmine Cornelio
Jane L. Eikleberry
Richard S. Fields
Richard Gordon
Howard Hantman |
Jan E. Kearney
Kenneth Lee
Leslie B. Miller
Michael Miller
Scott H. Rash
Sarah R. Simmons
Christopher P. Staring
Paul E. Tang
Stephen C. Villarreal |
|
|
|
|
|
PIMA COUNTY JUDGE REVIEWS |
ADAM, KAREN S.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile Presiding
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 14
Surveys Returned: 6 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 107
Surveys Returned: 24 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 134
Surveys Returned: 36 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
100 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
99 percent
95 percent
96 percent
87 percent
95 percent
76 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
97 percent
98 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
ARAGON, JR., GUS
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 126
Surveys Returned: 19 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 128
Surveys Returned: 17 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
98 percent
97 percent
95 percent
96 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BERNINI, DEBORAH
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 229
Surveys Returned: 84 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 184
Surveys Returned: 36 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed:100
Surveys Returned: 30 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
99 percent
100 percent
99 percent
95 percent
99 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BRYSON, KYLE A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 180
Surveys Returned: 54 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 74
Surveys Returned: 9 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 20
Surveys Returned: 7 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
94 percent
99 percent
95 percent
100 percent
98 percent
93 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
86 percent
94 percent
89 percent
91 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
CORNELIO, CARMINE
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002 |
28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 142
Surveys Returned: 67 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 162
Surveys Returned: 27 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
93 percent
90 percent
78 percent
94 percent
86 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
88 percent
83 percent
75 percent
87 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
EIKLEBERRY, JANE L.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 194
Surveys Returned: 64 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 184
Surveys Returned: 41 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 80
Surveys Returned: 50 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
94 percent
98 percent
96 percent
95 percent
100 percent
89 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
95 percent
99 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
FIELDS, RICHARD S.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal Presiding
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 12
Surveys Returned: 7 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 116
Surveys Returned: 74 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 130
Surveys Returned: 36 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 68
Surveys Returned: 26 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
100 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
99 percent
99 percent
99 percent
99 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
98 percent
99 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
99 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GORDON, RICHARD
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2009 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 7 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 253
Surveys Returned:102 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 71
Surveys Returned: 15 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 4 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
96 percent
96 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable
97 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
99 percent
98 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
96 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
HANTMAN, HOWARD
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1994 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 139
Surveys Returned: 57 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 297
Surveys Returned: 33 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
99 percent
93 percent
93 percent
98 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
82 percent
68 percent
70 percent
79 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
KEARNEY, JAN E.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
|
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 183
Surveys Returned: 46 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 92
Surveys Returned: 20 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 41
Surveys Returned: 35 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
100 percent
98 percent
98 percent
100 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
96 percent
97 percent
96 percent
95 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
LEE, KENNETH
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1997 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 54
Surveys Returned: 32 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 156
Surveys Returned: 57 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 26
Surveys Returned: 5 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 39
Surveys Returned: 33 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
98 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
99 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
93 percent
98 percent
93 percent
94 percent
99 percent
82 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MILLER, LESLIE B.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1985 |
23 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
7 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 81
Surveys Returned: 23 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 194
Surveys Returned: 46 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
91 percent
84 percent
80 percent
64 percent
89 percent
60 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
96 percent
96 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MILLER, MICHAEL
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2002 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 213
Surveys Returned: 59 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 123
Surveys Returned: 39 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed:124
Surveys Returned: 97 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
100 percent
95 percent
100 percent
99 percent
93 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
97 percent
98 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
RASH, SCOTT H.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 190
Surveys Returned: 75 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 33
Surveys Returned: 0 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 8
Surveys Returned: 2 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
96 percent
100 percent
97 percent
98 percent
99 percent
86 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
SIMMONS, SARAH R.
Assignment During Survey Period: Pima County Presiding Judge
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 94
Surveys Returned: 47 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 29
Surveys Returned: 9 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 36
Surveys Returned: 7 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 4 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
99 percent
99 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable
100 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
STARING, CHRISTOPHER P.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2010 |
28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Note: Judge Staring 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: 90
Surveys Returned: 20 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 211
Surveys Returned: 44 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
99 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
94 percent
94 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
TANG, PAUL E.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 2001 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed:169
Surveys Returned: 49 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 45
Surveys Returned: 5 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 68
Surveys Returned: 12 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
89 percent
97 percent
90 percent
89 percent
99 percent
93 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
VILLARREAL, STEPHEN C.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Pima County Superior Court: 1998 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 206
Surveys Returned: 72 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 58
Surveys Returned: 9 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 56
Surveys Returned: 33 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
98 percent
96 percent
95 percent
97 percent
85 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
98 percent
94 percent
98 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
|
|
RESULTS OF THE COMMISSION'S VOTE ON THE MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES DO NOT MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
NONE
THE FOLLOWING JUDGES MEET JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: |
|
|
Helene F. Abrams
Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr.
James P. Beene
A. Craig Blakey, II
Susan M. Brnovich
John A. Buttrick
Bruce R. Cohen
Connie Contes
Christopher A. Coury
Glenn Davis
John R. Ditsworth
Lisa Flores
Jeanne M. Garcia
David B. Gass
Pamela Gates
Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis
Douglas Gerlach
Michael D. Gordon
John R. Hannah, Jr.
Cari A. Harrison
Kristin Hoffman
Michael Kemp
Daniel J. Kiley
Andrew G. Klein
Thomas L. LeClaire
Margaret R. Mahoney
Crane McClennen
M. Scott McCoy
Paul J. McMurdie
Colleen A. McNally
Michael R. McVey
Linda H. Miles
Robert E. Miles
Robert H. Oberbillig
Jose S. Padilla
David J. Palmer
Karen A. Potts
Timothy J. Ryan
Teresa A. Sanders
Roland J. Steinle, III
Sherry K. Stephens
Peter A. Thompson
David K. Udall
Christopher T. Whitten
|
|
|
|
|
MARICOPA COUNTY JUDGE REVIEWS
ABRAMS, HELENE F.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 103
Surveys Returned: 18 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 448
Surveys Returned: 47 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
90 percent
96 percent
98 percent
95 percent
95 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
98 percent
91 percent
94 percent
91 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BALLINGER, JR., EDDWARD P.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile Presiding
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Note: Judge Ballinger is a member of the JPR Commission who could not vote on his own performance finding. |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 189
Surveys Returned: 75 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 81
Surveys Returned: 16 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 78
Surveys Returned: 11 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
99 percent
99 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable
99 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BEENE, JAMES P.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 157
Surveys Returned: 48 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 377
Surveys Returned: 12 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
99 percent
99 percent
97 percent
98 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
98 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BLAKEY, II, A. CRAIG
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 130
Surveys Returned: 37 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 566
Surveys Returned: 68 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
96 percent
96 percent
81 percent
85 percent
89 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
97 percent
94 percent
97 percent
94 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BRNOVICH, SUSAN M.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 235
Surveys Returned: 43 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 100
Surveys Returned: 17 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 28
Surveys Returned: 19 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
96 percent
96 percent
94 percent
97 percent
97 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
BUTTRICK, JOHN A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 441
Surveys Returned: 138 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 56
Surveys Returned: 11 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 17
Surveys Returned: 4 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
99 percent
98 percent
99 percent
98 percent
90 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
98 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
COHEN, BRUCE R.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 177
Surveys Returned: 34 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 40
Surveys Returned: 11 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 42
Surveys Returned: 8 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
96 percent
100 percent
99 percent
99 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
83 percent
89 percent
92 percent
89 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
CONTES, CONNIE
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002 |
28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet"
1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 277
Surveys Returned: 37 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 51
Surveys Returned: 18 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 77
Surveys Returned: 15 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
78 percent
94 percent
81 percent
90 percent
80 percent
83 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
93 percent
100 percent
96 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
COURY, CHRISTOPHER A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 119
Surveys Returned: 36 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 284
Surveys Returned: 67 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
99 percent
97 percent
97 percent
98 percent
90 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
DAVIS, GLENN
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 109
Surveys Returned: 27 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 233
Surveys Returned: 29 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
96 percent
97 percent
96 percent
98 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
91 percent
92 percent
90 percent
93 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
DITSWORTH, JOHN R.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 285
Surveys Returned: 75 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 47
Surveys Returned: 9 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 27
Surveys Returned: 21 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
77 percent
97 percent
83 percent
94 percent
95 percent
82 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
94 percent
86 percent
87 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
FLORES, LISA
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
1 Commissioner Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 216
Surveys Returned: 21 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 31
Surveys Returned: 7 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 103
Surveys Returned: 54 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
67 percent
96 percent
78 percent
81 percent
86 percent
90 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
92 percent
84 percent
86 percent
86 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GARCIA, JEANNE M.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 256
Surveys Returned: 49 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 35
Surveys Returned: 3 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 20
Surveys Returned: 9 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
70 percent
97 percent
84 percent
91 percent
85 percent
94 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GASS, DAVID B.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 120
Surveys Returned: 37 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 331
Surveys Returned: 33 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
96 percent
98 percent
95 percent
98 percent
95 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
85 percent
75 percent
76 percent
84 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GATES, PAMELA
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 123
Surveys Returned: 44 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 215
Surveys Returned: 21 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
97 percent
98 percent
97 percent
98 percent
95 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
81 percent
88 percent
81 percent
87 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GENTRY-LEWIS, JO LYNN
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 103
Surveys Returned: 31 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 337
Surveys Returned: 46 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
94 percent
94 percent
82 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
94 percent
94 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GERLACH, DOUGLAS
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Note: Judge Gerlach 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: 140
Surveys Returned: 36 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 249
Surveys Returned: 32 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
96 percent
95 percent
89 percent
92 percent
93 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
93 percent
83 percent
85 percent
86 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
GORDON, MICHAEL D.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 215
Surveys Returned: 70 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 566
Surveys Returned: 34 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
98 percent
96 percent
99 percent
94 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
93 percent
86 percent
91 percent
90 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
HANNAH, JR., JOHN R.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
20 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
10 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 201
Surveys Returned: 47 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 332
Surveys Returned: 8 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
80 percent
96 percent
87 percent
87 percent
91 percent
77 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
82 percent
82 percent
83 percent
80 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
HARRISON, CARI A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 207
Surveys Returned: 38 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 79
Surveys Returned: 11 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 56
Surveys Returned: 22 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
88 percent
99 percent
91 percent
93 percent
93 percent
82 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
HOFFMAN, KRISTIN
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 329
Surveys Returned: 60 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 63
Surveys Returned: 11 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 62
Surveys Returned: 39 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
89 percent
100 percent
98 percent
98 percent
98 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
KEMP, MICHAEL
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 108
Surveys Returned: 23 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 246
Surveys Returned: 17 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
94 percent
97 percent
93 percent
96 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
88 percent
82 percent
89 percent
96 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
KILEY, DANIEL J.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 137
Surveys Returned: 33 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 283
Surveys Returned: 16 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
99 percent
98 percent
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
KLEIN, ANDREW G.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 68
Surveys Returned: 17 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 37
Surveys Returned: 8 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 9
Surveys Returned: 5 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
96 percent
99 percent
95 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
LECLAIRE, THOMAS L.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010 |
28 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
2 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 190
Surveys Returned: 59 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 479
Surveys Returned: 15 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
81 percent
88 percent
83 percent
83 percent
86 percent
76 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
84 percent
72 percent
67 percent
80 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MAHONEY, MARGARET R.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2002 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 117
Surveys Returned: 35 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 342
Surveys Returned: 43 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
91 percent
98 percent
92 percent
87 percent
76 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
98 percent
94 percent
98 percent
94 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MCCLENNEN, CRANE
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1997 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 63
Surveys Returned: 26 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 4
Surveys Returned: 3 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
94 percent
93 percent
93 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MCCOY, M. SCOTT
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 79
Surveys Returned: 17 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 273
Surveys Returned: 8 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
83 percent
85 percent
73 percent
84 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MCMURDIE, PAUL J.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 194
Surveys Returned: 40 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 48
Surveys Returned: 10 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 63
Surveys Returned: 15 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
100 percent
99 percent
98 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MCNALLY, COLLEEN A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 113
Surveys Returned: 33 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 624
Surveys Returned: 28 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
91 percent
98 percent
91 percent
81 percent
84 percent
83 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
96 percent
91 percent
92 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MCVEY, MICHAEL R.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1993 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 8
Surveys Returned: 2 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44
Surveys Returned: 14 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 41
Surveys Returned: 5 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
91 percent
100 percent
70 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
92 percent
95 percent
92 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MILES, LINDA H.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 226
Surveys Returned: 53 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 36
Surveys Returned: 5 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 16
Surveys Returned: 9 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
94 percent
99 percent
94 percent
95 percent
95 percent
91 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
96 percent
100 percent
96 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
MILES, ROBERT E.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 230
Surveys Returned: 20 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 44
Surveys Returned: 4 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 49
Surveys Returned: 52 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
92 percent
99 percent
99 percent
96 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
OBERBILLIG, ROBERT H.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil Presiding
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 1998 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Presiding Judge Responses
Surveys Distributed: 39
Surveys Returned: 13 |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 217
Surveys Returned: 86 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 45
Surveys Returned: 6 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 36
Surveys Returned: 12 |
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
100 percent |
Score (See Footnote)
99 percent
98 percent
98 percent
97 percent
100 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
96 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
PADILLA, JOSE S.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
22 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
8 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 145
Surveys Returned: 30 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 195
Surveys Returned: 21 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 10
Surveys Returned: 7 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
82 percent
95 percent
85 percent
85 percent
92 percent
92 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
81 percent
67 percent
70 percent
84 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
PALMER, DAVID J.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2009 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 146
Surveys Returned: 36 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 338
Surveys Returned: 40 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
98 percent
99 percent
97 percent
100 percent
95 percent
92 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
89 percent
84 percent
90 percent
86 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
POTTS, KAREN A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Civil
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 197
Surveys Returned: 46 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 51
Surveys Returned: 9 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 25
Surveys Returned: 10 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
92 percent
94 percent
91 percent
90 percent
96 percent
83 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
87 percent
85 percent
95 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
100 percent
100 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
RYAN, TIMOTHY J.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2005 |
29 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet"
1 Commissioner Voted "Not Voting" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 122
Surveys Returned: 42 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 428
Surveys Returned: 22 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
97 percent
92 percent
97 percent
96 percent
92 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
84 percent
70 percent
79 percent
85 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
SANDERS, TERESA A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 136
Surveys Returned: 43 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 247
Surveys Returned: 34 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
99 percent
99 percent
100 percent
100 percent
97 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
94 percent
92 percent
90 percent
91 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
STEINLE, III, ROLAND J.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 127
Surveys Returned: 32 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 249
Surveys Returned: 28 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
94 percent
99 percent
89 percent
85 percent
95 percent
90 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
85 percent
91 percent
95 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
STEPHENS, SHERRY K.
Assignment During Survey Period: Criminal
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 319
Surveys Returned: 49 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 89
Surveys Returned: 14 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 39
Surveys Returned: 25 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
95 percent
100 percent
98 percent
98 percent
96 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
96 percent
99 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
99 percent
100 percent
96 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
THOMPSON, PETER A.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2010 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 104
Surveys Returned: 28 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 207
Surveys Returned: 27 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
99 percent
97 percent
99 percent
99 percent
93 percent
99 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
98 percent
100 percent
97 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
UDALL, DAVID K.
Assignment During Survey Period: Juvenile
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2001 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 104
Surveys Returned: 30 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 365
Surveys Returned: 57 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
100 percent
98 percent
100 percent
99 percent
99 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
99 percent
97 percent
98 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
WHITTEN, CHRISTOPHER T.
Assignment During Survey Period: Family
Appointed to Maricopa County Superior Court: 2006 |
30 Commissioners Voted "Meets"
0 Commissioners Voted "Does Not Meet" |
|
Judicial Performance
Standards Evaluation
Categories |
Attorney Responses
Surveys Distributed: 120
Surveys Returned: 29 |
Litigant, Witness,
ProPer Responses
Surveys Distributed: 292
Surveys Returned: 14 |
Juror Responses
Surveys Distributed: 0
Surveys Returned: 0 |
|
Legal Ability
Integrity
Communication Skills
Judicial Temperament
Administrative Performance
Settlement Activities
Administrative Skills |
Score (See Footnote)
97 percent
99 percent
97 percent
97 percent
98 percent
100 percent
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
100 percent
95 percent
100 percent
98 percent
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
Score (See Footnote)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable |
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 Not Applicable (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.
Back to the
Table of Contents