Fillable JP13REPT Form 2013 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank JP13REPT Form 2013 (Hawaii State Judiciary) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

JP13REPT Form 2013 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

On average this form takes 122 minutes to complete

The JP13REPT Form 2013 (Hawaii State Judiciary) form is 71 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 13 check-boxes
  • 480 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your Hawaii State Judiciary forms online.

BROWSE HAWAII STATE JUDICIARY FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
2013 REPORT
THE JUDICIARY
STATE OF HAWAI>I
November 7, 2013
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
2013 REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Judicial Performance Program 2013 Report summarizes the results of evaluations
involving seven Circuit Court judges and four District Court and Per Diem judges. Also
included are the results of a juror evaluation of eight Circuit Court judges.
To ensure the security, anonymity, and confidentiality of the evaluation process, it was
administered by Hawai>i Information Consortium. Hawai>i Information Consortium maintains
and manages the eHawaii.gov website. It is a company that is completely independent of
the Judiciary.
The Judicial Performance Program was created by Supreme Court Rule 19 as a method of
promoting judicial competence and excellence. The members of the Judicial Performance
Committee are listed in Appendix A.
Judicial Performance Program reports are issued yearly. Since the evaluation process
has been and is still evolving, comparisons of individual scores should be made only within each
respective report group.
JUDGES’ RATINGS
Judges are rated on Legal Ability, Judicial Management Skills, Comportment, and
Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability. All yearly reports on the Judicial Performance
Program are available to the public. Scores and comments received for individual judges are
available to the Judicial Selection Commission, upon its request.
Pictographs displaying frequency distributions of the judges’ ratings are included in this
evaluation report. Comparative rankings are provided in each area of assessment.
EVALUATION CYCLES
Appellate justices and judges and Circuit Court judges are scheduled for evaluation three
times in their ten-year terms. Full time District Family Court judges and District Court judges
are scheduled for evaluation twice in their six-year terms. For purposes of this program, Circuit
Court judges assigned to the Family Court of the First Circuit are considered Family Court
judges but are evaluated three times during their ten-year terms. A portion of the Per Diem
judge pool is scheduled for evaluation every three years.
The full time Family Court and District Court evaluations are phased to result in these
courts being included in the evaluation process two out of every three years; that is, about
one-half or approximately ten judges from each group are evaluated per cycle. Evaluations of
both full time Family Court and full time District Court judges were conducted in 2012.
Evaluation of District Court, but not of Family Court, judges was conducted in 2013.
Evaluation of Family Court, but not of District Court, judges is scheduled for 2014.
JUDICIAL EVALUATION REVIEW PANEL
The Judicial Evaluation Review Panel assists Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald in the
review and evaluation process. The Review Panel interviews the judges, and consists of nine
members: Robert Alm, Momi Cazimero, Kenneth Hipp, Douglas McNish, Willson Moore Jr.,
William Santos, Betty Vitousek, Corinne Watanabe, and Ruthann Yamanaka. The Review
Panel is organized into groups of three; every effort is made for each panel to consist of one
former judge, one nonpracticing attorney, and one member of the public knowledgeable in the
law. Their purpose is to interview and counsel the evaluated judges and help the judges
improve their performance.
2
CIRCUIT COURT RESULTS
Seven Circuit Court judges received the results of their evaluations under cover of
memoranda dated October 9, 2013. A link to the online questionnaire was provided to
attorneys by email on June 25, 2013. The surveys were collected from June 25, 2013 until
July 19, 2013.
Although ten judges were selected for the evaluation, only seven judges received at least
the eighteen responses required to be included. The other three judges did not receive
evaluation reports.
The email to active attorneys from Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and from the
President of the Hawaii State Bar Association is printed in Appendix B. The questionnaire is
printed in Appendix C. Possible ratings range from one for Poor to five for Excellent. Table 1
on page 4 provides the average scores by section for the seven judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability section was 3.8, with a standard deviation of 0.2.
The standard deviation gives an indication of the amount of variation in the scores among the
judges. (A small standard deviation means that scores generally were clustered about the mean;
a large standard deviation means that there was less clustering of the scores.) Most of the
judges scored between 3.6 and 4.0 in this section.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 4.0, with a standard
deviation of 0.2. The mean score for the Comportment section was 4.0, with a standard
deviation of 0.4. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section was
3.9, with a standard deviation of 0.2. The frequencies of the judges' ratings, by category, are
printed on pages 5 to 8.
There were 294 responses from attorneys out of 4513 emails sent out. Some of these
attorneys appeared before more than one judge. A reminder email sent to selected attorneys is
printed in Appendix D. The number of responses did not equal the number of questionnaires
received. The number of questionnaires received for the seven evaluated judges totaled 317,
with between 34 and 56 questionnaires received for each judge.
3
TABLE 1
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - CIRCUIT COURT
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SEVEN JUDGES
JUNE 25, 2013 - JULY 19, 2013
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 7 3.9 0.3
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 7 4.0 0.3
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 7 4.0 0.2
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 7 3.9 0.3
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 7 3.7 0.3
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 7 3.8 0.3
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 7 3.8 0.3
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 7 3.7 0.2
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 7 3.8 0.3
10. Completeness of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 7 3.8 0.2
11. Judge's Charge to the Jury/Juries 5 4.0 0.5
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 7 3.8 0.2
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 7 3.9 0.2
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 7 4.1 0.2
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 7 4.0 0.2
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 7 4.0 0.2
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 7 4.1 0.2
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 7 3.8 0.2
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 7 3.7 0.2
8. Industriousness 7 4.1 0.2
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 7 4.0 0.2
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 7 4.3 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 7 4.1 0.5
3. Compassion 7 3.9 0.4
4. Patience 7 3.9 0.5
5. Absence of Arrogance 7 3.9 0.6
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 7 4.1 0.3
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 7 4.0 0.4
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 7 4.0 0.4
Average Score for the Comportment Section 7 4.0 0.4
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 7 3.9 0.3
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 7 3.9 0.3
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 7 3.7 0.3
4. Impartiality 7 4.0 0.3
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 7 4.2 0.2
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 7 3.8 0.3
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 7 3.8 0.2
8. Facilitation in Development of Options 7 3.8 0.3
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 7 3.9 0.2
N = Number of Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Good | 3 = Adequate | 2 = Less Than Adequate | 1 = Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
4
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
June 25, 2013 – July 19, 2013
Circuit Court
Graph 1. Legal Ability Scale
5
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Graph 2. Judicial Management Skills Scale
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Circuit Court
June 25, 2013 – July 19, 2013
6
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Circuit Court
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 3. Comportment Scale
June 25, 2013 – July 19, 2013
7
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Circuit Court
Graph 4. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
June 25, 2013 – July 19, 2013
8
DISTRICT COURT AND PER DIEM RESULTS
Evaluation results were transmitted to four District Court and Per Diem judges by Chief
Justice Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated May 1, 2013. Surveys could be
completed over the Internet from February 26, 2013 to March 22, 2013.
Although thirteen judges were selected for the evaluation, only four judges received at
least the eighteen responses required to be included. The other nine judges did not receive
evaluation reports.
The District Court questionnaire is printed in Appendix E. Table 2 on the next page
provides the averages for the four judges.
The mean score for the Legal Ability Section was 3.8, and the standard deviation was 0.4.
Most of the judges received scores between 3.4 and 4.2.
The mean score for the Judicial Management Skills section was 3.9, and the standard
deviation was 0.4. The mean score for the Comportment section was 4.0, and the standard
deviation was 0.4. The mean score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability section
was 3.9, and the standard deviation was 0.4. The frequencies of the judges= ratings, by
category, are printed on pages 11 to 14.
Of the 3838 attorneys who were sent emails, 199 returned evaluations. Some of the 199
attorneys said they had not appeared before any judges, and some attorneys appeared before two
or more judges.
The four evaluated judges received between 22 and 48 evaluations each. The four
judges had a total of 127 evaluations returned.
9
TABLE 2
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR FOUR JUDGES
FEBRUARY 26, 2013 - MARCH 22, 2013
QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION N Mean Score S.D.
LEGAL ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowledge of Relevant Substantive Law 4 3.9 0.4
2. Knowledge of Rules of Procedure 4 4.0 0.4
3. Knowledge of Rules of Evidence 4 4.0 0.3
4. Ability to Identify and Analyze Relevant Issues 4 3.9 0.4
5. Judgment in Application of Relevant Laws and Rules 4 3.7 0.5
6. Giving Reasons for Rulings when Needed 4 3.8 0.4
7. Clarity of Explanation of Rulings 4 3.8 0.4
8. Adequacy of Findings of Fact 4 3.8 0.3
9. Clarity of Judge's Decision(s) (oral/written) 4 3.8 0.4
4 3.8 0.4
Average Score for the Legal Ability Section 4 3.8 0.4
JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SKILLS SECTION
1. Moving the Proceeding(s) in an Appropriately Expeditious Manner 4 4.0 0.4
2. Maintaining Proper Control over the Proceeding(s) 4 4.0 0.4
3. Doing the Necessary Homework on the Case(s) 4 3.9 0.4
4. Rendering Rulings and Decisions w/o Unnecessary Delay 4 4.1 0.3
5. Allowing Adequate Time for Presentation of the Case(s) 4 4.0 0.3
6. Resourcefulness and Common Sense in Resolving Problems 4 3.8 0.4
7. Skills in Effecting Compromise 4 3.7 0.5
8. Industriousness 4 4.0 0.3
Average Score for the Judicial Management Skills Section 4 3.9 0.4
COMPORTMENT SECTION
1. Attentiveness 4 4.2 0.3
2. Courtesy to Participants 4 4.0 0.3
3. Compassion 4 3.8 0.5
4. Patience 4 3.9 0.4
5. Absence of Arrogance 4 4.0 0.5
6. Absence of Bias and Prejudice 4 4.2 0.3
7. Evenhanded Treatment of Litigants 4 4.0 0.3
8. Evenhanded Treatment of Attorneys 4 4.1 0.3
Average Score for the Comportment Section 4 4.0 0.4
SETTLEMENT AND/OR PLEA AGREEMENT ABILITY SECTION
1. Knowing the Case(s) and/or the Law 4 3.9 0.4
2. Reasonableness of Opinions 4 3.9 0.4
3. Ability to Enhance the Settlement Process 4 3.7 0.6
4. Impartiality 4 4.0 0.4
5. Absence of Coercion or Threat 4 4.2 0.3
6. Effectiveness in Narrowing the Issues 4 4.0 0.4
7. Appropriateness of Judge's Initiatives 4 3.9 0.6
8. Facilitation in Development of Options
4 3.8 0.6
Average Score for the Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability Section 4 3.9 0.4
N = Number of Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Good | 3 = Adequate | 2 = Less Than Adequate | 1 = Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
10
0
1
2
3
4
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
February 26, 2013 – March 22, 2013
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Graph 5. Legal Ability Scale
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
11
0
1
2
3
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
February 26, 2013 – March 22, 2013
Graph 6. Judicial Management Skills Scale
12
0
1
2
3
4
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
February 26, 2013 – March 22, 2013
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
Graph 7. Comportment Scale
13
0
1
2
3
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
District Court
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
No. of Judges
February 26, 2013 – March 22, 2013
Graph 8. Settlement/Plea Agreement Ability Scale
14
CIRCUIT COURT JUROR EVALUATION RESULTS
Juror evaluation results were transmitted to eight Circuit Court judges by Chief Justice
Recktenwald under cover of memoranda dated May 1, 2013. Surveys were distributed by
standard mail on January 24, 2013 and were collected until February 27, 2013. Table 3 on the
next page provides the averages for the eight judges.
The mean score for Overall Performance was 4.8, with a standard deviation of 0.1.
Most of the judges received scores between 4.7 and 4.9 for Overall Performance. The mean
score for the other ten evaluation categories combined was 4.7, and the standard deviation was
0.0. The frequencies of judges' ratings, by category, are printed on pages 17 and 18. The juror
evaluation questionnaire is included as Appendix F.
Jurors were selected from the pools of jurors who had been chosen or sworn, including
alternates. Even if a juror had not sat through an entire trial because of settlement or other
reasons, it was felt that the juror would have had sufficient contact with the judge to be able to
fill out the evaluation. Between 128 and 150 jurors were selected for each judge.
The number of survey forms distributed for the eight judges was 1172. Of this total,
473 questionnaires were returned. Between 48 and 68 questionnaires were received per judge.
15
TABLE 3
JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM - JUROR EVALUATION
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR EIGHT JUDGES
JANUARY 24, 2013 - FEBRUARY 27, 2013
N Mean Score S.D.
Please indicate your assessment of
this judge's Overall Performance. 8 4.8 0.1
Please indicate your assessment of this judge's performance
as to all parties with respect to the following:
1. Patience 8 4.7 0.0
2. Dignity 8 4.8 0.0
3. Courtesy 8 4.8 0.1
4. Attentiveness 8 4.7 0.0
5. Fairness 8 4.7 0.1
6. Absence of arrogance 8 4.7 0.0
7. Absence of bias 8 4.7 0.1
8. Absence of prejudice 8 4.7 0.0
9. Clear communication of court procedures 8 4.8 0.1
10. Efficient use of court time 8 4.6 0.1
Average Score for Items 1 through 10 8 4.7 0.0
N = Number of Judges with More Than Five Responses for the Item
Legend for Mean Score: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Good | 3 = Adequate
2 = Less Than Adequate | 1 = Poor
S.D. = Standard Deviation
16
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Juror Evaluation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 9. Overall Performance
January 24, 2013 – February 27, 2013
17
Poor Less Than
Adequate
Adequate Good Excellent
Scale Interval Category
No. of Judges
Juror Evaluation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.0 to 1.4 1.5 to 2.4 2.5 to 3.4 3.5 to 4.4 4.5 to 5.0
Frequency Of Judges’ Ratings, By Category
Graph 10. Average For Items 1 Through 10
January 24, 2013 – February 27, 2013
18
APPENDIX A
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE
Judge Derrick H.M. Chan, Chair
Judge Rhonda I. L. Loo
Judge Clarence A. Pacarro
Susan L. Arnett, Esq.
Claire K. S. Cooper
Gail Y. Cosgrove, Esq.
Todd W. Eddins, Esq.
Rosemary T. Fazio, Esq.
Rodney A. Maile, Esq., Administrative Director of the Courts
James C. McWhinnie, Esq.
Audrey L. E. Stanley, Esq.
Janice Yee
19
APPENDIX B
EMAIL FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR
20
To:
From: Rodney.A.Maile@courts.hawaii.gov
Sent: June 25, 2013
Subject: Joint Email From Chief Justice Recktenwald and HSBA President Wagnild Re
Judicial Evaluations
Dear Attorney:
This is a joint email from Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and HSBA President Craig P.
Wagnild. The Judiciary is conducting an online evaluation of Circuit Court Judges _____, _____,
_____, _____, _____, _____, _____, _____, _____, and _____.
The Judiciary and the HSBA encourage all members to participate in the evaluation
process. If an insufficient number of evaluations for a particular judge are received, then that
judge will not be evaluated. An independent consultant has determined that at least eighteen
evaluations must be submitted in order for a judge to receive a reliable and accurate
evaluation report.
While this online judicial evaluation differs from the HSBA’s judicial evaluation survey,
both programs are designed to give you the opportunity to provide meaningful input concerning
individual judges. Judges are receptive to receiving your comments, suggestions, and feedback.
Your evaluations serve to enhance judicial performance and improve the judicial skills and
techniques of Hawai‘i’s judges.
Please access [link to questionnaire] to commence your judicial evaluations. The link is
unique to your email address, so please do not forward this email. You may exit and later return
to the evaluations simply by clicking this link. The judicial evaluations will remain accessible to
you until July 19, 2013.
To ensure security and confidentiality, the evaluation process is conducted by
SurveyMonkey. It is administered by eHawaii.gov, which is independent of the Judiciary and the
HSBA. Only composite results are transmitted to the Judiciary.
The evaluation is designed to obtain fair assessments from attorneys who have actually
appeared before the evaluated judge. Please ensure that your evaluation is based solely on your
direct experience and not obtained through hearsay or through other means.
If you did not appear before a judge, enter that option after selecting the judge’s name.
Also, if you do not wish to participate in future judicial evaluations, please select [link to opt out],
and you will be removed from this mailing list.
21
Thank you for your consideration.
Click http://www.courts.state.hi.us/courts/performance_review/judge_evaluations_faqs.html for a
list of Frequently Asked Questions. For other questions, please contact Michael Oki
at (808)539-4870.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Recktenwald Craig P. Wagnild
Chief Justice President
Supreme Court of Hawai‘i Hawaii State Bar Association
22
APPENDIX C
CIRCUIT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
23
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendof
theevaluation.
1. Have you appeared before this judge during the period from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2013?
(If you
answer No, please skip questions 2 and 3, and proceed by clicking on Continue).
2. How many times have you appeared before this judge during the referenced period?
3. For what types of matters have you appeared before this Judge during the referenced period ? (Please
select all that apply.)
Sample
Basic Evaluation Questions
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
1
2
nmlkj
3
5
nmlkj
6
10
nmlkj
Morethan10
nmlkj
Jurytrial(s)
gfedc
Nonjurytrial(s)
gfedc
Contestedmotion(s)withsignificantlegalissues
gfedc
Settlementorpretrialpleaagreementconference(s)
gfedc
Evidentiaryhearing(s)
gfedc
Sentencing(s)
gfedc
Othersubstantivematter(s)(describe)
gfedc
5
5
6
6
Other
24
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Thissectiondealswithlegalcompetence,learning,andunderstanding.Italsodealswiththejudicial
applicationofknowledgeintheconductofcourtproceedings.
1. Knowledge of relevant substantive law
2. Knowledge of rules of procedure
3. Knowledge of rules of evidence
4. Ability to identify and analyze relevant issues
5. Judgment in application of relevant laws and rules
6. Giving reasons for rulings when needed
7. Clarity of explanation of rulings
8. Adequacy of findings of fact
9. Clarity of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Sample
Legal Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
25
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
10. Completeness of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
11. Judge's charge to the jury/juries
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
applicable
nmlkj
26
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Thissectiondealswithjudicialabilityandskillintheorganization,management,andhandlingofcourt
proceedings.
1. Moving the proceeding(s) in an appropriately expeditious manner
2. Maintaining proper control over the proceeding(s)
3. Doing the necessary homework on the case(s)
4. Rendering rulings and decisions without unnecessary delay
5. Allowing adequate time for presentation of the case(s) or motion(s) in light of existing time constraints
6. Resourcefulness and common sense in resolving problems arising from the proceeding(s)
7. Skills in effecting compromise
8. Industriousness
Sample
Judicial Management Skills
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
27
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Thissectiondealswithvariousaspectsofjudicialpersonalityandbehaviourinthecourtproceedings,
suchastemperament,attitude,andmanner.
1. Attentiveness
2. Courtesy to participants
3. Compassion
4. Patience
5. Absence of arrogance
6. Absence of bias and prejudice based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, social class, or other factor
7. Evenhanded treatment of litigants
8. Evenhanded treatment of attorneys
Sample
Comportment
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
28
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Thissectionassumesyouhaveparticipatedinoneormoresettlement/pleaagreementconferences
withthisjudge.Thissectiondealswiththesettlement/pleaagreementprocessincludingsettlement
conferencespursuanttorule12.1,circuitcourtrules,andpretrialconferencesinvolvingrule11,rules
ofpenalprocedure.
1. Knowing the case(s) and/or the law well enough to address key issues
2. Reasonableness of opinions on how key issues might be resolved at trial
3. Ability to enhance the settlement process by creating consensus or to facilitate the plea agreement
process
4. Impartiality as to how/in whose favor agreement was reached
5. Absence of coercion or threat
6. Effectiveness in narrowing the issues in dispute
7. Appropriateness of judge's settlement/plea initiatives
8. Facilitation in development of options for settlement/plea
Sample
Settlement and/or plea agreement ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
Not
Applicable
nmlkj
29
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Weunderstandthatanonymityisimportant.
However,themorespecifictheinput,themoreusefulit
willbeforthejudge.
Constructivecommentsthatexplainwhyajudgeisviewedpositivelyornegatively
willassistthejudgemorethanbroadstatementsthatajudgeisgoodornotgood.
Pleasebeadvised
thatyourcommentswillbeforwardedtotheChiefJustice.Ifyourcommentsrelatetoacasethatison
appeal,youshouldexercisecautioninyourremarks.
Pleaseremembernottoidentifyyourself.
1. Legal ability
2. Judicial management skills
3. Comportment
4. Settlement/plea agreement ability
5. Overall/General
Sample
Comment Page
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
30
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
1. Thank you for completing the evaluation for Judge ____.
Sample
Evaluation Complete
Iwouldliketofilloutanevaluationforanotherjudge.
nmlkj
Ihavecompletedevaluationsforalljudges.
nmlkj
31
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Thisinformationwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
1. How long have you practiced law ? (years)
2. Which of the following describes your practice of law ?
Sample -Background Characteristics
0to3
nmlkj
4to7
nmlkj
8to11
nmlkj
12to15
nmlkj
16to19
nmlkj
20to23
nmlkj
24to27
nmlkj
28ormore
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Solo(includingofficesharing)
nmlkj
Lawfirmwith2
15attorneys
nmlkj
Lawfirmwithmorethan15attorneys
nmlkj
Corporateorhousecounsel
nmlkj
Prose(Representingself)
nmlkj
Government
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Other(pleasespecify)
nmlkj
5
5
6
6
32
Judicial Circuit Court Evaluation - June 2013
Pleaseconfirmthatyouhavecompletedevaluationsforjudgesyouhaveappearedbeforeandyou
arereadytosubmityourresponses.
Thankyoufortakingthetimetoprovidefeedback.Youropinionisveryimportant.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisevaluation,pleasecallthePolicyandPlanningDepartmentat
539
4870.Mahalo!
1. Please let us know what you think of the online evaluation process.
Are you comfortable with the
confidentiality and anonymity of this process?
Why or why not?
Sample - Submit Evaluations
5
5
6
6
33
APPENDIX D
REMINDER EMAIL TO ATTORNEYS
34
Bcc:
From: Rodney.A.Maile@courts.state.hi.us
Sent: July 2, 2013
Subject: Circuit Court Judges’ Evaluation
Dear Attorney:
The Judiciary and the Hawaii State Bar Association recently sent you an email regarding
the evaluation of Circuit Court judges. We would like to ask you for your assistance by
completing the questionnaire if you have appeared before one or more of the judges identified in
the questionnaire. If you are not in a position to evaluate a judge, but another attorney in your
office is, would you please forward this email to that attorney?
The Judicial Performance Program is an important part of the Judiciary=s ongoing efforts to
better serve those who deal with the judicial system. Because of the statistical requirements of
our evaluation process, each judge undergoing evaluation needs to have at least eighteen
completed questionnaires submitted. Consequently, we will not be able to complete the
evaluation of any judge who does not receive at least eighteen completed questionnaires during the
evaluation period.
We thank you very much for your assistance in this process, and if you have already
completed the questionnaire, we greatly appreciate your participation.
Rodney A. Maile
Administrative Director of the Courts
The Judiciary — State of Hawai‘i
35
APPENDIX E
DISTRICT COURT QUESTIONNAIRE
36
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Pleaseanswerallmultiplechoicequestions.
Therewillbeaplaceforgeneralcommentsattheendoftheevaluation.
1. Have you appeared before this judge during the period from January 1, 2011 to
December 31, 2012?
(If you answer No, please skip questions 2 and 3, and proceed by
clicking on Continue).
2. How many times have you appeared before this judge during the referenced period?
3. For what types of matters have you appeared before this Judge during the referenced
period ? (Please select all that apply.)
Sample
Basic Evaluation Questions
*
Yes
nmlkj
No
nmlkj
1
2
nmlkj
3
5
nmlkj
6
10
nmlkj
Morethan10
nmlkj
Nonjurytrial(s)
gfedc
Contestedmotion(s)withsignificantlegalissues
gfedc
Settlementorpretrialpleaagreementconference(s)
gfedc
Evidentiaryhearing(s)
gfedc
Sentencing(s)
gfedc
Othersubstantivematter(s)(describe)
gfedc
5
5
6
6
Other
37
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Thissectiondealswithlegalcompetence,learning,andunderstanding.Italsodealswiththejudicialapplicationof
knowledgeintheconductofcourtproceedings.
1. Knowledge of relevant substantive law
2. Knowledge of rules of procedure
3. Knowledge of rules of evidence
4. Ability to identify and analyze relevant issues
5. Judgment in application of relevant laws and rules
6. Giving reasons for rulings when needed
7. Clarity of explanation of rulings
8. Adequacy of findings of fact
9. Clarity of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Sample
Legal Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
38
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
10. Completeness of judge's decision(s) (oral/written)
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
39
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Thissectiondealswithjudicialabilityandskillintheorganization,management,andhandlingofcourtproceedings.
1. Moving the proceeding(s) in an appropriately expeditious manner
2. Maintaining proper control over the proceeding(s)
3. Doing the necessary homework on the case(s)
4. Rendering rulings and decisions without unnecessary delay
5. Allowing adequate time for presentation of the case(s) or motion(s) in light of existing
time constraints
6. Resourcefulness and common sense in resolving problems arising from the proceeding
(s)
7. Skills in effecting compromise
8. Industriousness
Sample
Judicial Management Skills
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
40
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Thissectiondealswithvariousaspectsofjudicialpersonalityandbehaviourinthecourtproceedings,suchas
temperament,attitude,andmanner.
1. Attentiveness
2. Courtesy to participants
3. Compassion
4. Patience
5. Absence of arrogance
6. Absence of bias and prejudice based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, social class, or
other factor
7. Evenhanded treatment of litigants
8. Evenhanded treatment of attorneys
Sample
Comportment
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
41
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Thissectionassumesyouhaveparticipatedinoneormoresettlement/pleaagreementconferenceswiththisjudge.This
sectiondealswiththesettlement/pleaagreementprocessincludingsettlementconferencespursuanttorule12.1,district
courtrules,andpretrialconferencesinvolvingrule11,rulesofpenalprocedure.
1. Knowing the case(s) and/or the law well enough to address key issues
2. Reasonableness of opinions on how key issues might be resolved at trial
3. Ability to enhance the settlement process by creating consensus or to facilitate the plea
agreement process
4. Impartiality as to how/in whose favor agreement was reached
5. Absence of coercion or threat
6. Effectiveness in narrowing the issues in dispute
7. Appropriateness of judge's settlement/plea initiatives
8. Facilitation in development of options for settlement/plea
Sample
Settlement and/or Plea Agreement Ability
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
Excellent
nmlkj
Good
nmlkj
Adequate
nmlkj
Lessthan
Adequate
nmlkj
Poor
nmlkj
NotApplicable
nmlkj
42
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Weunderstandthatanonymityisimportant.However,themorespecifictheinput,themoreusefulitwillbeforthejudge.
Constructivecommentsthatexplainwhyajudgeisviewedpositivelyornegativelywillassistthejudgemorethanbroad
statementsthatajudgeisgoodornotgood.PleasebeadvisedthatyourcommentswillbeforwardedtotheChief
Justice.Ifyourcommentsrelatetoacasethatisonappeal,youshouldexercisecautioninyourremarks.Pleasetype
yourcomments,andremembernottoidentifyyourself.
1. Legal ability
2. Judicial management skills
3. Comportment
4. Settlement/plea agreement ability
5. Overall/General
Sample
Comment Page
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
43
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
1. Thank you for completing the evaluation for Judge _____.
Sample
Evaluation Complete
Iwouldliketofilloutanevaluationforanotherjudge.
nmlkj
Ihavecompletedevaluationsforalljudges.
nmlkj
44
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Thisinformationwillbeusedforstatisticalpurposesonly.
1. How long have you practiced law ? (years)
2. Which of the following describes your practice of law ?
Sample -Background Characteristics
0to3
nmlkj
4to7
nmlkj
8to11
nmlkj
12to15
nmlkj
16to19
nmlkj
20to23
nmlkj
24to27
nmlkj
28ormore
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Solo(includingofficesharing)
nmlkj
Lawfirmwith2
15attorneys
nmlkj
Lawfirmwithmorethan15attorneys
nmlkj
Corporateorhousecounsel
nmlkj
Prose(Representingself)
nmlkj
Government
nmlkj
Refusetoanswer
nmlkj
Other(pleasespecify)
nmlkj
5
5
6
6
45
Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013Judicial District Court Evaluation - February 2013
Pleaseconfirmthatyouhavecompletedevaluationsforjudgesyouhaveappearedbeforeandyouarereadytosubmit
yourresponses.
Thankyoufortakingthetimetoprovidefeedback.Youropinionisveryimportant.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisevaluation,pleasecallthePolicyandPlanningDepartmentat539
4870.Mahalo!
1. Please let us know what you think of the online evaluation process.
Are
you comfortable
with the confidentiality and anonymity of this process?
Why or why not?
Sample -Submit Evaluations
5
5
6
6
46
APPENDIX F
JUROR EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
47
DO NOT DUPLICATE
SAMPLE
CONFIDENTIAL
Judicial Performance Program - Circuit Court
Juror Evaluation of Judge _
Please complete the following evaluation based on your personal knowledge and experience with the
above-named Judge. If you wish to offer additional comments about the Judge’s performance, please
elaborate in the comments section below.
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Less Than
Adequate
Poor
Please indicate your assessment of this
judge’s Overall Performance
Please indicate your assessment of this judge’s performance as to all parties with respect to the following:
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Less Than
Adequate
Poor
1
Patience
2
Dignity
3
Courtesy
4
Attentiveness
5
Fairness
6
Absence of arrogance
7
Absence of bias
8
Absence of prejudice
9
Clear communication of
court procedures
10
Efficient use of court time
Please check the type of trial in which you served on a jury in this judge’s courtroom.
(Please check one only.) Civil Trial Criminal Trial
Comments:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
48
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

JP13REPT Form 2013 (Hawaii State Judiciary)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 18 July 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document