Evaluation of the Judiciary Serving Jefferson County, KY. Comparison of Judges Summary Report

Similar documents
CHURCH DENOMINATIONS

Stewardship, Finances, and Allocation of Resources

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TYPES OF CHURCH

AN ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY AND A PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL STANDING of the AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES OF NEBRASKA PREAMBLE:

Westminster Presbyterian Church Discernment Process TEAM B

January Parish Life Survey. Saint Paul Parish Macomb, Illinois

Basic Church Profile Inventory Sample

Pontiac Correctional Center: Inmate Survey Results from JHA s Monitoring Visit Conducted March 13 th 2018

Introduction to Philosophy: Knowledge and Reality

Spring 2017 Diversity Climate Survey: Analysis Report. Office of Institutional Research November 2017 OIR 17-18

THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AN ANALYSIS OF STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND THREATS (SWOT) Roger L. Dudley

Page 1 of 16 Spirituality in a changing world: Half say faith is important to how they consider society s problems

CONGREGATIONAL PROFILE

SAINT ANNE PARISH. Parish Survey Results

Healing the Heart Prayer Ministry

Church Planter Summary Report for Shane Planter

Congregational Survey Results 2016

Exhibit C. Sample Pediatric Forensic Informed Consent Form (Longer Version) {Insert Letterhead} INFORMED CONSENT FOR NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST BOARD STANDING RULES Reviewed and Revised October 9, 2015

Self-Evaluation of Maturity

If you are willing to complete the questionnaire on this basis, please tick one of the following statements:

PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES

August Parish Life Survey. Saint Benedict Parish Johnstown, Pennsylvania

BIRTH CONTROL: CHRISTIAN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE

Views on Ethnicity and the Church. From Surveys of Protestant Pastors and Adult Americans

Pan African Orthodox Christian Church

The Scripture Engagement of Students at Christian Colleges

2016 Parish Survey Results

Personal Data. Present Address: Permanent Address: Place of birth: Are you a U.S. Citizen? yes no Social Security No.: Position applying for:

Tuen Mun Ling Liang Church

Results from the Johns Hopkins Faculty Survey. A Report to the Johns Hopkins Committee on Faculty Development and Gender Dr. Cynthia Wolberger, Chair

Your Church Participation

MEMBER ENGAGEMENT SURVEY RESULTS

Parish Needs Survey (part 2): the Needs of the Parishes

The First Church in Oberlin, United Church of Christ. Policies and Procedures for a Safe Church

Special Abilities: Please indicate any activities or sports which you would be willing to coach, supervise, sponsor,

SECTION 1: GENERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ORDINATION

ELC VITAL SIGNS CHURCH ASSESSMENT SUMMARY. C.A.T. Task Force Team Presentation, March 16th

Compassion, Peace and Justice The August 2010 Survey

MEMBER ENGAGEMENT SURVEY RESULTS

Distinctively Christian values are clearly expressed.

A Comprehensive Study of The Frum Community of Greater Montreal

2) If you do spend time in completely focused prayer, do you have a specific location where you regularly do this? 454 Answered

SECTION 1: GENERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING ORDINATION

GAARDE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL

PJ Library Family Survey

OUTSTANDING GOOD SATISFACTORY INADEQUATE

Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary 2016 Parish Survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

May Parish Life Survey. St. Mary of the Knobs Floyds Knobs, Indiana

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D05-619

April Parish Life Survey. Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish Las Vegas, Nevada

Religious Belief and Practice in Urban Latin America: Key Findings from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, São Paulo and Lima

2010 Spiritual Life Survey Southern Adventist University. Monte Sahlin Senior Consultant Center for Creative Ministry

CONGREGATIONAL VITALITY VOL

HIGH POINT CHRISTIAN ACADEMY 307 North Rotary Drive High Point, North Carolina (336) FAX (336)

Maranatha Christian Schools

Survey of Pastors. Source of Data in This Report

The World Church Strategic Plan

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 107 Filed: 04/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1817

Feminism And Christian Ethics (New Studies In Christian Ethics) By Susan Frank Parsons READ ONLINE

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 35

Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians, 2011

WHAT S HAPPENING IN YOUTH CONFIRMATION? Confirmation Leader Responses

Thank you for your interest in the High Plains Food Bank.

CONGREGATIONS ON THE GROW: SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS IN THE U.S. CONGREGATIONAL LIFE STUDY

Agape Schools Inc. INITIAL Employment APPLICATION

OT 3XS3 SAMUEL. Tuesdays 1:30pm 3:20pm

Syllabus for PRM 660- Practical Theology for Charismatic Ministry 3 Credit Hours July 8-12, 2013

COMMUNICATOR Newsletter of the Volusia County Bar Association MAY 2012

Executive Summary Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 2018 Synod of Bishops XV Ordinary General Assembly Young people, the Faith and Vocational Discernment

Ability, Schooling Inputs and Earnings: Evidence from the NELS

WHEN AND HOW MUST AN EMPLOYEE S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BE ACCOMMODATED? HEALTH DIRECTORS LEGAL CONFERENCE JUNE 8, 2017

REL 6387/LAS 6938: RELIGIONS IN LATIN AMERICA Spring 2017 Tues. 4, Thurs. 4/5

Survey Report New Hope Church: Attitudes and Opinions of the People in the Pews

Current Average Ratings by Morgan Law Firm Clients. Overall Satisfaction: 9.9 / New Client Intake Process: 9.9 / 10.0

Do not open this examination paper until instructed to do so. Section A: answer one question. Section B: answer one question.

DUI CONSULTANTS, LLC PENNSYLVANIA S ONLY LAW FIRM DEDICATED EXCLUSIVELY TO DUI DEFENSE CLIENT REVIEWS

Redding Christian School Old 44 Drive Palo Cedro, CA (530) (530) Fax

Native American Christian Academy

Canadians evenly divided on release of Omar Khadr Lack of consensus also extends to whether Khadr has been treated fairly

QCAA Study of Religion 2019 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus

American Views on Sin. Representative Survey of 1,000 Americans

Youth Enrichment Summer Calvary Baptist Church

REVEAL Spiritual Vitality Index for Brazos Meadows Baptist Church

Protestant Pastors Views on the Environment. Survey of 1,000 Protestant Pastors

ARAB BAROMETER SURVEY PROJECT YEMEN REPORT

Academic History of Suzie Ling

Current Issues in Church and Society The February 2012 Survey

American Views on Honor and Shame. Representative Survey of 1,000 Americans

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN First Assembly and New City Church Somewhere, North Dakota

Professional and Ethical Expectations for Clergy. General Assembly of the Church of God in Michigan

ST507: Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism

Congregational Vitality Index

Transformation 2.0: Baseline Survey Summary Report

MN 382 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF PREACHING

CHURCH SURVEY RETURN TO OFFICE OR MAILBOX IN WESLEY HALL BY JAN. 2, 2016

Pastor s Ministry Review

Religion and faith in Canada today: strong belief, ambivalence and rejection define our views

Islamic Counselling and Psychotherapy in South Africa. Research Analysis and findings

The influence of Religion in Vocational Education and Training A survey among organizations active in VET

Transcription:

Evaluation of the Judiciary Serving Jefferson County, KY Jefferson Circuit Court and Jefferson Family Court Comparison of Judges Summary Report The Louisville Bar Association and The Louisville Bar Foundation 600 West Main Street Louisville, KY 40202 Evaluation

Table of Contents Background and Methodology... 1 General Satisfaction with Performance... 5 Judicial Temperament Ratings... 11 Court Management Ratings... 17 Judicial Integrity Ratings... 23 Legal Ability Ratings... 29 Civil Cases Ratings... 35 Criminal Cases Ratings... 39 i

Background and Methodology 1

Background and Methodology Background As part of its annual review of the performance of sitting judges, the Louisville Bar Association (LBA) sent notices to all Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) members with contact addresses in Jefferson County. These attorneys were invited to rate the performance of various judges with whom they have had substantial professional contact over the past two years. Jefferson Circuit Court and Jefferson Family Court judges were included in the evaluation for. Methodology A total of 4,574 KBA members received an emailed invitation to participate in the evaluation. The invitation contained a link to participate in the electronic evaluation. A unique identification number was required to access the evaluation. The evaluation was open from October 25 through November 8,. In total, 542 responses were received. Response Rate Because of the size of the litigation bar and the nature of such practice, only a limited number of attorneys have had significant professional contact with a particular judge in a specific court. Consequently, from the original 4,574 attorneys who received notice of the evaluation, just a fraction could reasonably be expected to respond to the questions. Of those attorneys who were qualified and participated in the evaluation, many may have had significant experience in only one of the courts evaluated or with a limited number of judges listed. Still, the number of attorneys responding is more than adequate to result in a statistically valid evaluation of the judiciary. 2

The judges rated during the evaluation and the total number of respondents rating each judge are shown below: Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig (n=231) Susan Schultz Gibson (n=203) Ann Bailey Smith (n=194) A.C. McKay Chauvin (n=250) Judith E. McDonald-Burkman (n=222) Olu A. Stevens (n=214) Charles L. Cunningham Jr. (n=219) Mitchell L. Perry (n=223) Barry Willett (n=221) Audra J. Eckerle (n=187) Mary M. Shaw (n=198) Brian C. Edwards (n=211) Jefferson Family Court Dolly Wisman Berry (n=112) Tara Hagerty (n=116) Deana McDonald (n=122) Denise Brown (n=127) Hugh Smith Haynie Jr. (n=113) A. Christine Ward (n=105) Gina Kay Calvert (n=119) Angela J. Johnson (n=96) Deborah Deweese (n=126) Questionnaire The evaluation instrument included a series of 19 attributes for the circuit court and 17 attributes for the family court that were used to evaluate the performance of each judge. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement used to describe a particular judge using a four-point rating scale of strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree. Respondents were also given an option to write in any advice they would give to a particular judge to improve his/her performance. These comments were provided only to the applicable judge under separate cover as confidential feedback for his or her personal review. General comments on how to improve the court system were provided to the chief judges of the circuit court and family court, respectively, under separate cover. General comments on how to improve the evaluation process were submitted to the LBA under separate cover. Respondents were instructed to rate only those judges with whom they have had substantial professional contact within the past two years. Where applicable, comparative ratings are shown from the most recent prior Judicial Evaluation in. 3

4

General Satisfaction with Performance The rating for this category is based on the level of agreement with the following statement for each judge: Does a good job overall. This is an independent rating of the above attribute. It is NOT a mathematical average of all other ratings. 5

General Satisfaction with Performance Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. 73% 94% 95% 90% 98% 95% Audra J. Eckerle Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 85% 82% 95% 92% 95% 94% 87% 90% 6

General Satisfaction with Performance Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 80% 82% Mary M. Shaw 85% 88% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 52% 53% 83% 83% Barry Willett 83% 81% 7

General Satisfaction with Performance Jefferson Family Court Dolly Wisman Berry 95% 92% Denise Brown Gina Kay Calvert This judge not evaluated in. 53% 50% 68% Deborah Deweese Tara Hagerty Hugh Smith Haynie Jr. Angela J. Johnson 68% 76% 67% 64% 98% 94% 94% 89% 8

General Satisfaction with Performance Jefferson Family Court Deana McDonald This judge not evaluated in 2013. 82% 85% A. Christine Ward 77% 84% 9

10

Judicial Temperament Ratings An average rating was calculated for the performance attributes that make up the Judicial Temperament category. This rating was calculated by averaging the positive ratings for each attribute ( strongly disagree and disagree for negative statements, agree and strongly agree for positive statements). The performance areas under Judicial Temperament are: Gives due consideration to arguments of counsel. Conducts court proceedings courteously. Pre-determines the outcome of the case. Refrains from interfering with the role of counsel in case presentation. Conducts court proceedings with objectivity. 11

Judicial Temperament Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig 95% 96% A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. 72% 86% 96% 93% Audra J. Eckerle 85% 85% Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 97% 95% 96% 96% 88% 88% 12

Judicial Temperament Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 81% 83% Mary M. Shaw 93% 94% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 62% 84% 86% 81% Barry Willett 84% 84% 13

Judicial Temperament Jefferson Family Court Dolly Wisman Berry 91% 89% Denise Brown 55% 59% Gina Kay Calvert This judge not evaluated in. 70% Deborah Deweese 67% 82% Tara Hagerty Hugh Smith Haynie Jr. 96% 96% 91% 86% Angela J. Johnson 75% 74% 14

Judicial Temperament Jefferson Family Court Deana McDonald A. Christine Ward 75% 86% 91% 89% 15

16

Court Management Ratings An average rating was calculated for the performance attributes that make up the Court Management category. This rating was calculated by averaging the positive ratings for each attribute ( agree and strongly agree ). The performance areas under Court Management are: Conducts court business in a timely manner. Is usually available for business during normal working hours. Is familiar with the file so as to consider issues presented. Exercises appropriate control over court proceedings and court personnel. 17

Court Management Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. Audra J. Eckerle Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 95% 96% 93% 97% 99% 99% 95% 95% 95% 94% 98% 96% 95% 97% 18

Court Management Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 89% 91% Mary M. Shaw 89% 92% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 89% 97% 77% 82% Barry Willett 80% 91% 19

Court Management Jefferson Family Court Dolly Wisman Berry 99% 93% Denise Brown 67% 67% Gina Kay Calvert This judge not evaluated in. 84% Deborah Deweese Tara Hagerty Hugh Smith Haynie Jr. Angela J. Johnson 88% 90% 94% 92% 87% 87% 82% 81% 20

Court Management Jefferson Family Court Deana McDonald This judge not evaluated in 2013. 91% 89% A. Christine Ward 86% 93% 21

22

Judicial Integrity Ratings An average rating was calculated for the performance attributes that make up the Judicial Integrity category. This rating was calculated by averaging the positive ratings for each attribute ( strongly disagree and disagree for negative statements, agree and strongly agree for positive statements). The performance areas under Judicial Integrity are: Is influenced by the race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status of persons appearing in court. Engages in out-of-court conduct or activity which directly interferes with judicial effectiveness. Is affected by partisan interests in the conduct of the court. Engages in ex parte communications which may prejudice proceedings. Lets personal relationships affect his/her judgment. Adheres to the highest ethical standards in and out of court. 23

Judicial Integrity Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. Audra J. Eckerle Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 96% 96% 86% 92% 97% 97% 92% 92% 96% 95% 96% 97% 93% 94% 24

Judicial Integrity Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 89% 91% Mary M. Shaw 96% 97% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 49% 57% 90% 87% Barry Willett 93% 92% 25

Judicial Integrity Jefferson Family Court Dolly Wisman Berry 95% 92% Denise Brown 70% 64% Gina Kay Calvert This judge not evaluated in. 80% Deborah Deweese 83% 86% Tara Hagerty 97% 94% Hugh Smith Haynie Jr. Angela J. Johnson 87% 87% 83% 96% 26

Judicial Integrity Jefferson Family Court Deana McDonald This judge not evaluated in 2013. 87% 88% A. Christine Ward 96% 89% 27

28

Legal Ability Ratings The rating for this category is based on the level of agreement with the following statement for each judge: Renders decisions that reflect sound legal analysis. 29

Legal Ability Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. 69% 90% 88% 85% 97% 92% Audra J. Eckerle Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 82% 76% 93% 87% 91% 90% 82% 86% 30

Legal Ability Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 73% 79% Mary M. Shaw 78% 81% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 54% 51% 75% 79% Barry Willett 83% 79% 31

Legal Ability Jefferson Family Court Dolly Wisman Berry 92% 88% Denise Brown Gina Kay Calvert This judge not evaluated in. 50% 45% 69% Deborah Deweese 68% 77% Tara Hagerty 96% 88% Hugh Smith Haynie Jr. 85% 95% Angela J. Johnson 63% 63% 32

Legal Ability Jefferson Family Court Deana McDonald This judge not evaluated in 2013. 79% 79% A. Christine Ward 73% 80% 33

34

Civil Cases Ratings The rating for this category is based on the level of agreement with the following statement for each judge: Does a good job in handling civil cases. Family Court Judges were not evaluated on civil cases 35

Civil Cases Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. 80% 92% 95% 92% 96% 94% Audra J. Eckerle Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 86% 86% 94% 87% 93% 89% 87% 91% 36

Civil Cases Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 82% 82% Mary M. Shaw 84% 84% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 56% 62% 77% 89% Barry Willett 82% 76% 37

38

Criminal Cases Ratings The rating for this category is based on the level of agreement with the following statement for each judge: Does a good job in handling criminal cases. Family Court Judges were not evaluated on criminal cases. 39

Criminal Cases Jefferson Circuit Court Angela McCormick Bisig A.C. McKay Chauvin Charles L. Cunningham Jr. 62% 96% 91% 84% 94% 94% Audra J. Eckerle 83% 79% Brian C. Edwards Susan Schultz Gibson 99% 95% 99% 96% Judith E. McDonald- Burkman 84% 85% 40

Criminal Cases Jefferson Circuit Court Mitchell L. Perry 78% 80% Mary M. Shaw 87% 86% Ann Bailey Smith Olu A. Stevens 41% 54% 78% 88% Barry Willett 87% 87% 41