You are on page 1of 192

ExECUTIVE SECRET AllY

!<ARC R . H .. DE

Aa.....AHT ExaCUT1VE SECRJn"ARY II<

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

JUDICIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY


ROBERT L . SMITH , OIl'ECTOR
JUDICIAL PLANNING

LEGAL COUN. .L

CYRIL. W . MILLER, JR., DIRECTOft

EDW.... D M . M"CON
JUDICIAL SERVICES

Coum IMPROVEMEHr PROGRAM


SANDIilA L. KARlSON, DIRECTOR

PAUL F. DELOSH, DIRECTOpt


LEGAL REsEARCH
STEVEN L. CALLE MURA, DIRECTOR

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

CAROLINE E. KIRKPATRICK, DIRECTOR

LEGISLATIVE 8c PUBLIC R!1.A.TIONB


KRISTI S. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR

FISCAL SERVlCD
JOHN B . RICKMAN, DIRECTOR

OFFICE

OF

100

HUMAN RE80URCES
RENte:: FLEMING MILLS, DIRECTOR

THE

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

NORTH

NINTH

STREET

23219-2334
(804) 786-6455

RICHMOND,

MAGISTRATE SERVICES
MASON L. BYRD, DIRECTOR

VIRGINIA

December 1, 2016

DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL


The Honorable Mark D. Obenshain, Chairman
Senate Committee on Courts of Justice
General Assembly Building
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
The Honorable David B. Albo, Chairman
House Committee on Courts of Justice
General Assembly Building
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re:

Judicial Performance Evaluation Reports Pursuant to Code 17.1-100

Dear Chairmen Obenshain and Albo:


Virginia Code 17.1-100 requires that
A. ... By December 1 of each year, the Supreme Court, or its designee, shall
transmit a report of the evaluation in the final year of the term of each justice and
judge whose term expires during the next session of the General Assembly to the
Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice.
B. The reporting requirement of this section shall become effective when funds
are appropriated for this program and shall apply to the evaluation of any justice
or judge who has had at least one interim evaluation conducted during his term.

The attached document includes the evaluation reports prepared for judges, listed below,
who are eligible for reelection during the 2017 session ofthe General Assembly. These judges
each have had at least one interim evaluation conducted during their terms.

The Honorable Mark D. Obenshain, Chairman


The Honorable David B. Albo, Chairman
December 1, 2016
Page 2

Circuit Court Judges


1. Honorable Leslie L. Lilley Judge (2nd CiJcuit)
2. Honorable John R. Doyle 111, Judge (4 th Circuit)
3. Honorable Mary Jane Hall, Judge (4 th Circuit)
4. Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones, Judge (4th Circuit)
5. Honorable Bonnie L. Jones Judge (8 th Circuit)
6. Honorable Timothy 1. Hauler, Judge (1i h Circuit)
th
7. Honorable Charles S. Sharp Judge ( 15 Circuit)
8. Honorable William T. Newman Jr., Judge (1 i h Circuit)
9. Honorable Jan L. Brodie Judge (19 1h Circuit)
10. Honorable Jeffrey W. Parker Judge (20 th Circuit)
11. Honorable Joseph W. Milam Jr. Judge (22 11d Circuit)
12. Honorable James R. Swanson, Judge (23 rd Circuit)
13. Honorable C. Randall Lowe, Judge (28 th CiJcuit)
14. Honorable Craig D. Johnston, Judge (31 st Circuit)
General D'istrict Court Judges
15. Honorable Alfred W. Bates, Ill, Judge (5 th District)
16. Honorable James J. 0 Connell, III, Judge (Ii" District)
17. Honorable Michael Joseph Cassidy, Judge (l9 th District)
18. Honorable J. Gregory Ashwell Judge (20 th District)
Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Judges
19. Honorable Rufus A. Banks, Jr., Judge (lst District)
20. Honorable Larry D. Willis Sr. Judge (1 sl District)
21. Honorable M. Randolph Carlson, II Judge (4 th District)
22. Honorable Thomas W. Carpenter, Judge (i h District)
23. Honorable Shannon O. Hoehl, Judge (15 th District)
24. Honorable Julian W. Johnson>Judge (15 th District)
25. Honorable Constance H. Frogale Judge (18 1h District)
26. Honorable Pamela L. Brooks Judge (20 th District)
--------------------------------------27. Honorable Jonathan S. Lyon Judge (201h District) Retiring
---------------------------------------28. Honorable Paul A. Tucker Judge (25 1h District)

(MKF)

If you have any questions concerning this document, please do not hesitate to contact me.
With kind regards, I am
Very truly yours,

Karl R. Hade
Attachment
cc:

Division of Legislative Automated Systems


Mary Kate Felch, Division of Legislative Services

Judicial Performance Evaluation Program


Information for General Assembly Members - 2016
The following information is provided to assist General Assembly members in understanding the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Reports and the methods used to conduct the evaluations.

Please note that each judge's evaluation is unique, and is not directly comparable to other
judges' evaluation reports.
Here are some factors you may wish to consider:

Due to the nature of the court there are different respondent groups for different types of
court.
o

General District Court judges and Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court judges
were evaluated only by attorneys.

Circuit Court judges were evaluated by jurors in addition to attorneys; however, some
judges did not receive any juror survey responses -- either because no jury trials were
conducted during the relevant time period, or the jurors chose not to respond. When
applicable, the juror responses were submitted with attorney responses.

For Circuit Court judges, respondents are asked to rate the judge based on experiences with
the judge during the previous three years. For District Court judges, respondents are asked
to rate the judge based on experiences with the judge during the previous one year.

Efforts are made to survey a large number of individuals; however, this is a voluntary
process. While the responses received are not necessarily representative of all potential
respondents, each judge's report accurately reflects the actual responses received for that
judge.

Judges receive evaluations from attorneys who have appeared before the specific judge.
Thus, the judges within a single circuit or district may be evaluated by different attorneys,
and there will be individual differences in how attorneys rate judges. Also, there may be
regional differences in how groups of attorneys tend to rate judges.

The number of attorneys surveyed is not uniform. Generally, there are fewer attorneys to
survey for judges who preside in rural areas. Each judge's report lists how many total
surveys were completed for that judge.

For judges who have a very high number of potential attorney respondents, only a sample of
those respondents is surveyed (approximately 250). For judges in more rural jurisdictions, all
identified eligible attorneys may be surveyed ifthere are less than 250 potential respondents
identified.

In order to be eligible to complete an evaluation, an attorney must have appeared before the
evaluated judge at least one time in the applicable time period.

Judges preside in different environments.


o

Some sit every day in one location; others travel to several different courts during the
week.

Judges in different districts or circuits may hear very different types of cases. Even
within a single district or circuit, some judges may hear a certain type of case (i.e.,
criminal) more than other judges do.

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Leslie L. Lilley


Judge of the Circuit Court
2nd Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 160 completed surveys for Judge Leslie L. Lilley.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Leslie L. LilJey: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

71
58

44.9%
36.7%

Some of the Time

25

15.8%

Rarely

2.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

100
44

62.5%
27.5%

Some of the Time

15

9.4%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

108
38

69.2%

5.8%

0.6%
0.0%

100

64.5%

46

29.7%

4.5%

2
0

1.3%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

24.4%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Leslie L. Lilley: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

103

65.2%

Frequently

38

24.1%

Some of the Time

15

9.5%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

119
33

75.8%
21.0%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

124

78.0%

Frequently

29

18.2%

Some of the Time

2.5%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

98
43

61.6%
27.0%

Some of the Time

15

9.4%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

105

66.0%

Frequently

40

25.2%

Some of the Time

11

6.9%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge Leslie L. Lilley: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

111
26

78.7%
18.4%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Never
Every Time
Frequently

0.7%
122
29

79.2%
18.8%

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

125
31

79.1%
19.6%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.6%
0.6%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

89
44

57.4%
28.4%

Some of the Time

17

11.0%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

1.3%

Every Time
Frequently

91
48

58.0%
30.6%

Some of the Time

12

7.6%

Rarely

3.2%

Never

0.6%

5
2016

Eva'luatioD of Judge Leslie L. Lilley: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

94
48

59.9%
30.6%

Some of the Time

13

8.3%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

100
36

64.1%
23.1%

Some of the Time

16

10.3%

Rarely

2.6%

Never

0.0%

103
29

66.5%
18.7%

19

12.3%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently

99
41

62.7%
26.0%

Some of the Time

13

8.2%

Rarely

2.5%

Never

0.6%

111
38

69.8%
23.9%

3.8%

2.5%

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Leslie L. Lilley: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

105
43

66.9%
27.4%

Some of the Time

4.5%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

101
40

63.9%
25.3%

Some of the Time

13

8.2%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

1.3%

Excellent
Good

86
54

54.4%
34.2%

Needs Improvement

14

8.9%

Unsatisfactory

2.5%

19

15.2%

2.4%

103

82.4%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable John R. Doyle, III


Judge of the Circuit Court
4th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 182 completed surveys for Judge John R. Doyle, III.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge John R. Doyle, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

149
26

84.2%
14.7%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

157
20

88.7%
11.3%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

137
15

89.5%

Some of the Time

0.7%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

136

88.9%

17

11.1%

0.0%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

9.8%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge John R. Doyle, HI: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

160
16

90.4%
9.0%

Some of the Time

0.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

145
23

85.8%
13.6%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

159
17

90.3%
9.7%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

153
22

86.4%
12.4%

Some ofthe Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

148
24

84.6%
13.7%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

0.6%

2016

Evaluation of Judge John R. Doyle, In: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time

132

93.0%

Frequently

6.3%

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

139

90.9%

Frequently

14

9.2%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

158

91.9%

14

8.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Every Time

121

80.7%

Frequently

28

18.7%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.7%

Some of the Time

0.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

132

86.3%

Frequently

19

12.4%

Some of the Time

1.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge John R. Doyle, ill: Evaluation Summal),


Survey Responses
Performance FaCtor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time

135

88.2%

Frequently

15

9.8%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

133

86.4%

Frequently

21

13.6%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

131

87.3%

Frequently

19

12.7%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

155

88.1%

Frequently

19

10.8%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

160

90.9%

13

7.4%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

2016

Evaluation of Judge John R. Doyle, III: Evaluation Summal-y


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time

139

79.0%

Frequently

35

19.9%

Some of the Time

l.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

150

84.8%

Frequently

25

14.l%

Some of the Time

l.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent

163

89.6%

Good

19

10.4%

Needs Improvement

0.0%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

21

16.5%

0.0%

106

83.5%

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Mary Jane Hall


Judge of the Circuit Court
4th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included l3 ofthe 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 167 completed surveys for Judge Mary Jane Hall.

2016

Evaluation of Judge Mary Jane Hall: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

126
35

75.5%
21.0%

Some of the Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

139
24

83.7%
14.5%

Some of the Time

1.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

117
28

77.0%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely
Never

0
1

0.0%
0.7%

119

78.8%

25

16.6%

4.6%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

18.4%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Mary Jane Hall: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Number

Percent

136
22

82.4%
13.3%

Some of the Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

129
27

79.1%
16.6%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

139
22

83.2%
13.2%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

129
26

77.3%
15.6%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

1.8%

Never

0.0%

131
23

78.4%
13.8%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

2.4%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge Mary Jane Hall:

EV~lluation

Summary
Survey Responses

Performance Factor
Number

Percent

115
14

82.7%
10.1%

Some of the Time

5.0%

Rarely

2.2%

Never

0.0%

116
27

76.8%
17.9%

4.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time
Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently

136
20

82.4%
12.1%

4.9%

0.0%

0.6%

121
20

80.1%
13.3%

Some of the Time

6.0%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

109
25

71.2%
16.3%

Some of the Time

14

9.2%

Rarely

3.3%

Never

0.0%

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge allows lawyers appropriate
latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Mary Jane Hall: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

Number

Percent

Every T ime
Frequently

110
22

71.9%
14.4%

Some of the Time

16

10.5%

Rarely

3.3%

Never

0.0%

114
31

74.5%
20.3%

Some of the Time

4.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.7%

119
26

77.8%
17.0%

4.6%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

126
29

76.4%
17.6%

Some of the Time

4.9%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

132
24

79.0%
14.4%

4.2%

1.2%

1.2%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Mary Jane Hall: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

112
43

67.5%
25.9%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

120
31

73.6%
19.0%

Some of the Time

10

6.1%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

117
33

71.8%
20.3%

Needs Improvement

11

6.8%

Unsatisfactory

1.2%

19

17.3%

1.8%

89

80.9%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

The judge -uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Jerrauld C. Jones


Judge of the Circuit Court
4th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 167 completed surveys for Judge Jerrauld C. Jones.

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jerrauld C. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

137
27

82.5%
16.3%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

151
15

91.0%
9.0%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

138
18

86.8%

Some of the Time

1.9%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

134

83.8%

18

11.3%

5.0%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

11.3%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jerrauld C. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Number

Percent

150

89.8%

16

9.6%

Some of the Time

0.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

141
21

86.5%
12.9%

Some of the Time

0.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

140
24

84.3%
14.5%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

142
18

86.1%
10.9%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

143
16

86.7%
9.7%

Some of the Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jerrauld C. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time

125

87.4%

Frequently

13

9.1%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

0.7%
0

0.0%

Every Time

134

85.4%

Frequently

22

14.0%

Never

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

145

87.4%

20

12.1%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.6%
0

0.0%

0.0%

Every Time

135

86.0%

Frequently

18

11.5%

Some of the Time

1.9%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

129

80.6%

Frequently

24

15.0%

Some of the Time

3.8%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

0.6%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jerrauld C. Jones: Evaluation Summary


. Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

Number

Percent

Every Time

125

78.l%

Frequently

29

18.l%

Some of the Time

3.l%

Rarely
Never

The judge communicates effectively

0.6%
0

0.0%

Every Time

134

84.3%

Frequently

19

12.0%

Some of the Time

3.l%

Rarely

0.6%
0

0.0%

Every Time

116

72.5%

Frequently

31

19.4%

12

7.5%

0.0%

Never

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

The judge's decisions are clear

The judge performs judicial duties without


bias or prejudice

0.6%

EvelY Time

138

83.6%

Frequently

18

10.9%

Some of the Time

5.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

143

88.3%

Frequently

13

8.0%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jerrauld C. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

Number

Percent

Every Time

109

66.9%

Frequently

44

27.0%

Some of the Time

5.5%
0.6%

Rarely
Never

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

0.0%

Every Time

109

67.3%

Frequently

32

19.8%

Some of the Time

17

10.5%

Rarely

1.9%
0.6%

Never

Judge's overall performance

Excellent

140

85.4%

Good

18

11.0%

Needs Improvement

3.7%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

15

11.6%

0.8%

113

87.6%

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Bonnie L. Jones


Judge of the Circuit Court
8th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
. Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 152 completed surveys for Judge Bonnie L. Jones.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Bonnie L. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

115
30

75.7%
19.7%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

125
20

82.2%
13.2%

Some of the Time

4.6%

Rarely

0
0

0.0%

112
27

76.2%
18.4%

Some of the Time

4.1%

Rarely
Never

2
0

1.4%
0.0%

113

77.4%

26

17.8%

2.7%

3
0

2.1%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Never

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

0.0%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Bonnie L. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

126

Frequently

20

82.9%
13.2%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

126
21

84.0%
14.0%

1.3%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

126
21

82.9%
13.8%

Some of the Time

1.3%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.7%

120
24

79.5%
15.9%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

116
26

77.3%
17.3%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

0.7%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Bonnie L. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

115
15

87.1%
11.4%

Some of the Time

1.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

124
18

84.9%
12.3%

2.1%

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time
Rarely
Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never
Every Time
Frequently
Thejudge allows lawyers appropriate
latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

Some of the Time

0.7%
129
17

86.0%
11.3%

2.7%

0.0%

0.0%

113
26

77.4%
17.8%

3.4%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently

97
35

66.0%
23.8%

Some of the Time

12

8.2%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.7%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Bonnie L. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

99
38

67.4%
25.9%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

114
26

77.6%
17.7%

Some of the Time

2.7%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

0.0%

119
20

82.6%
13.9%

2.1%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

110
35

72.4%
23.0%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

1.3%

Never

0.0%

113
26

76.4%
17.6%

4.7%

1.4%

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

2016

Evaluation of Judge Bonnie L. Jones: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor
Number

Percent

110
29

74.3%
19.6%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

113
26

76.9%
17.7%

4.1%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.7%

Excellent
Good

106
38

70.7%
25.3%

Needs Improvement

2.7%

Unsatisfactory

1.3%

18

16.2%

1.8%

91

82.0%

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Timothy J. Hauler


Judge of the Circuit Court
12th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf ofthe
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 152 completed surveys for Judge Timothy 1. Hauler.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Timothy J. Hauler: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

100
44

65.8%
29.0%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

1.3%

Every Time
Frequently

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in'the courtroom

121
26

79.6%
17.1%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

111
23

77.6%

Some of the Time

4.9%

Rarely
Never

2
0

1.4%
0.0%

112

78.3%

20

14.0%

10

7.0%

1
0

0.7%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

16.1%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Timothy J. Hauler:

valuation Summary
Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

125

82.8%

Frequently

15

9.9%

Some of the Time

11

7.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

117
23

81.3%
16.0%

Some of the Time

1.4%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

113
34

74.3%
22.4%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

115
22

76.2%
14.6%

Some of the Time

10

6.6%

Rarely

2.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

119
17

78.8%
11.3%

Some of the Time

12

8.0%

Ral:ely

2.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge Timothy J. Hauler: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

108
13

87.1%
10.5%

Some of the Time

2.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

123
16

87.2%
1l.4%

0.7%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

133
14

87.5%
9.2%

2.6%

0.7%

0.0%

109
24

76.8%
16.9%

Some of the Time

6.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

106
27

74.1%
18.9%

5.6%

Every T ime
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge allows lawyers appropriate
latitude in presentation of their case

Every Time
Frequently
The judge displays knowledge of the law

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.7%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Timothy J. Hauler: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

99
29

69.7%
20.4%

Some of the Time

12

8.5%

Rarely

0.7%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

0.7%
114
21

79.7%
14.7%

Some of the Time

4.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never
Every Time
Frequently

114
24

80.3%
16.9%

2.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

117
28

77.0%
18.4%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

117
20

78.5%
13.4%

Some of the Time

4.7%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

1.3%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
bias or prejudice

0.7%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Timothy J. Hauler: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor
Number

Percent

106
38

71.6%
25.7%

Some of the Time

2.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

119
24

79.3%
16.0%

Some of the Time

4.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

117
23

78.0%
15.3%

Needs Improvement

4.7%

Unsatisfactory

2.0%

5.7%

2.4%

114

91.9%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Excellent
Good

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Charles S. Sharp


Judge of the Circuit Court
15th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf ofthe
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 157 completed surveys for Judge Charles S. Sharp.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Charles S. Sharp: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
Some of the Time

Number

Percent

109
39

69.4%
24.8%

5.1%

Rarely
Never

0.0%

123
30

78.3%
19.1%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

109
15

82.6%
11.4%

Some of the Time

3.8%

Rarely
Never

1.5%
0.8%

105

79.6%

20

15.2%

3.8%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

0.6%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

0.8%
0.8%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Charles S. Sharop: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

129

Frequently

24

82.2%
15.3%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

117
24

80.1%
16.4%

Some of the Time

2.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the. proceedings

134
22

85.4%
14.0%

Some of the Time

0.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

122
26

77.7%
16.6%

Some of the Time

5.1%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

123
26

78.3%
16.6%

4.5%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

0.7%

Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

0.6%
0

0.0%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge Charles S. Sharp: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

95
17

81.2%
14.5%

Some of the Time

4.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

109
19

84.5%
14.7%

0.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

129
22

83.8%
14.3%

2.0%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

88
32

68.2%
24.8%

Some of the Time

6.2%

Rarely

0.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

95
28

72.0%
21.2%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

0.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Bvery Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

2016

Evaluation of Judge Charles S. Sharp: Evaluation Summar]


Survey Responses

Performance Factor
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is faithful to the law

Some of the Time

Number

Percent

96
26

73.3%
19.9%

6.1%
0.8%

Rarely

The judge communicates effectively

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

98
26

74.2%
19.7%

Some of the Time

5.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.8%

96
27

73.3%
20.6%

3.l%

2.3%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time
Rarely

0.8%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

119
31

76.8%
20.0%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.7%

125
22

81.2%
14.3%

Some of the Time

4.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
bias or prejudice

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Charles S. Sharp: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

116
35

74.8%
22.6%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

123
30

78.9%
19.2%

1.3%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Some of the Time

0.6%

Rarely
Never

Judge's overall performance

Excellent
Good
Needs Improvement

0.0%

131
17

83.4%
10.8%

5.1%

Unsatisfactory

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

0.6%

12

12.1%

4.0%

83

83.8%

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable William T. Newman, Jr.


Judge of the Circuit Court
17th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 ofthe 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 177 completed surveys for Judge William T. Newman, Jr.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge William T. Newman, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

134
35

76.1%
19.9%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

158
15

89.8%
8.5%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

92
18

76.7%

Some of the Time

6.7%

Rarely
Never

2
0

1.7%
0.0%

Every Time

83

69.8%

25

21.0%

7.6%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

15.0%

0.8%
0.8%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge William T. Newman, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

158
14

89.8%
8.0%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.6%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

140
20

83.8%
12.0%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

1.2%

139
30

78.5%
17.0%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

1.1%

Never

0.6%

153
18

86.9%
10.2%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

1.1%

Never

0.6%

155
16

87.6%
9.0%

2.3%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

0.6%

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.6%

2016

Evaluation of Judge William T. Newman, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Number

Percent

93
4

93.9%
4.0%

Some of the Time

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

1.0%

102
14

86.4%
11.9%

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

156
14

89.7%
8.1%

1.7%

0.0%

0.6%

Every Time
Frequently

81
25

70.4%
21.7%

Some ofthe Time

6.1%

Rarely

1.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

86
25

71.7%
20.8%

Some of the Time

5.0%

Rarely

2.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge William T. Newman, Jr.:


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

88
25

73.3%
20.8%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

2.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

88
27

74.0%
22.7%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.8%

Never

0.8%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

6.9%
0.9%

Never

0.9%

Some of the Time

137
28

79.2%
16.2%

3.5%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.6%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
bias or prejudice

67.2%
24.1%

Rarely

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

78
28

Some of the Time

154
13

89.5%
7.6%

1.7%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.6%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge William T. Newman, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

85
47

48.9%
27.0%

Some of the Time

31

17.8%

Rarely

4.0%

Never

2.3%

113
45

65.7%
26.2%

Some of the Time

5.2%

Rarely

1.7%

Never

1.2%

138
33

78.4%
18.8%

Needs Improvement

1.7%

Unsatisfactory

1.1%

8.3%

2.1%

87

89.7%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Excellent
Good

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Jan L. Brodie


Judge of the Circuit Court
19th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use ofthis Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 166 completed surveys for Judge Jan L. Brodie.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jan L. Brodie: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

98
53

59.4%
32.1%

Some of the Time

12

7.3%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

119
37

72.1%
22.4%

Some of the Time

4.2%

Rarely
Never

2
0

1.2%
0.0%

104
31

75.4%
22.5%

Some of the Time

2.2%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

106

76.8%

28

20.3%

2.2%

1
0

0.7%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jan L. Brodie: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

130
28

78.3%
16.9%

Some of the Time

2.4%

Rarely

2.4%

Never

0.0%

116
31

76.3%
20.4%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

138
23

83.1%
13.9%

Some of the Time

2.4%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

126
28

76.4%
17.0%

Some of the Time

4.9%

Rarely

1.8%

Never

0.0%

127
27

77.4%
16.5%

Some of the Time

4.3%

Rarely

1.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Every T ime
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jan L. Brodie: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

101
17

84.9%
14.3%

Some of the Time

0.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

104
30

77.6%
22.4%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

131
29

81.4%
18.0%

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

87
37

64.9%
27.6%

Some of the Time

6.7%

Rarely

0.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

81
33

60.5%
24.6%

Some of the Time

18

13.4%

Rarely

0.8%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

Never

0.8%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jan L. Brodie: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

88
29

65.2%
21.5%

Some of the Time

16

11.9%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently

91
32

66.9%
23.5%

Some of the Time

10

7.4%

Rarely

2.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

87
35

65.4%
26.3%

6.8%

Rarely

1.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

120
30

72.7%
18.2%

Some of the Time

13

7.9%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.6%

132
20

82.0%
12.4%

Some of the Time

3.7%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
bias or prejudice

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jan L. Brodie: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

113
41

72.9%
26.5%

Some of the Time

0.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

113
43

69.8%
26.5%

Some of the Time

1.9%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

115
38

69.3%
22.9%

Needs Improvement

11

6.6%

Unsatisfactory

1.2%

21

20.2%

1.9%

81

77.9%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Jeffrey W. Parker


Judge of the Circuit Court
20th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 155 completed surveys for Judge Jeffrey W. Parker.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jeffrey W. Parker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience


courtroom

i~

the

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

60
61

39.0%
39.6%

Some of the Time

28

18.2%

Rarely

3.3%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

82
50

52.9%
32.3%

Some of the Time

17

11.0%

Rarely

3.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

63.4%

Frequently

90
38

26.8%

Some of the Time

11

7.8%

Rarely
Never

3
0

2.1%
0.0%

92

65.7%

36

25.7%

6.4%

3
0

2.1%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jeffrey W. Parker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

Number

Percent

Every Time

89

Frequently

40

57.4%
25.8%

Some of the Time

16

10.3%

Rarely

5.2%

Never

1.3%

Every Time
Frequently

92
40

64.3%
28.0%

Some of the Time

6.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

1.4%

105
40

67.7%
25.8%

Some of the Time

5.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Never

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently

90
42

58.4%
27.3%

Some of the Time

15

9.7%

Rarely

3.9%
0.7%

Never

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Every Time
Frequently

91
37

59.5%
24.2%

Some of the Time

17

11.1 %

Rarely

4.6%

Never

0.7%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jeffrey W. Parker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time

87

76.3%

Frequently

23

20.2%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.9%

Every Time

104

72.7%

Frequently

36

25.2%

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

113

74.8%

35

23.2%

1.3%

0.0%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every T ime
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.7%

Every Time

75

53.6%

Frequently

42

30.0%

Some of the Time

18

12.9%

Rarely

3.6%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

80

56.3%

Frequently

41

28.9%

Some of the Time

16

11.3%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Jeffrey W. Parker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time

83

58.0%

Frequently

39

27.3%

Some of the Time

18

12.6%

Rarely

2.l%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

92

63.9%

Frequently

35

24.3%

Some of the Time

15

10.4%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

86

62.8%

Frequently

45

32.9%

3.7%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time


Rarely

The judge's decisions are clear

0.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

92

6l.7%

Frequently

42

28.2%

Some of the Time

12

8.l%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

96

64.0%

37

24.7%

10

6.7%

4.0%

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

0.7%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Jeffrey W. Parker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time

102

67.6%

Frequently

46

30.5%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

100

65.8%

Frequently

41

27.0%

Some of the Time

5.3%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent

85

55.6%

Good

48

31.4%

Needs Improvement

15

9.8%

Unsatisfactory

3.3%

11

10.0%

4.6%

94

85.5%

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Joseph W. Milam, Jr.


Judge of the Circuit Court
22nd Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Perfonnance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and infonnation for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 perfonnance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 perfonnancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed'out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each perfonnance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular perfonnance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 116 completed surveys for Judge Joseph W. Milam, Jr.

2016

Evaluation of Judge Joseph W. Milam, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

77
32

67.0%
27.8%

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

91
21

79.1%
18.3%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

79
18

80.6%

Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Some of the Time

18.4%
1.0%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time

78

79.6%

20

20.4%

0.0%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Josepb W. Milam, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

88

Frequently

24

76.5%
20.9%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

86
19

78.9%
17.4%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

95
18

81.9%
15.5%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

90
18

77.6%
15.5%

Some of the Time

6.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Ti me
Frequently

89
21

76.7%
18.1%

Some of the Time

5.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge Joseph W. Milam, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

72
16

80.9%
18.0%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

82
15

83.7%
15.3%

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

95
17

82.6%
14.8%

1.7%

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

71
23

71.7%
23.2%

Some of the Time

5.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

69
26

69.7%
26.3%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

2016

Evaluation of Judge Joseph W. Milam, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

EvelY Time
Frequently

71
22

71.7%
22.2%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

72
24

72.7%
24.2%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

73
22

75.3%
22.7%

1.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

89
18

77.4%
15.7%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

1
0

0.9%

91
16

80.5%
14.2%

5.3%

0.0%

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

0.0%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Joseph W. MiJam, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

94
20

81.7%
17.4%

Some of the Time

0.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

EvelY T ime
Frequently

91
19

79.8%
16.7%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

0.9%

Rarely

Judge's overall performance

In general, over the last three years, has the


judge's overall court-related performance
become ...

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

86
25

74.1%
21.6%

Needs Improvement

4.3%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

Better

10.4%

Worse

1.3%

68

88.3%

Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable James R. Swanson


Judge of the Circuit Court
23rd Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 167 completed surveys for Judge James R. Swanson.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge James R. Swanson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

121
38

73.3%
23.0%

Some 'ofthe Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

128
35

76.7%
2l.0%

Some of the Time

2.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

135
23

83.9%

Some of the Time

l.9%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

131

8l.4%

27

16.8%

l.9%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

14.3%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge James R. Swanson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

138

Frequently

24

82.6%
14.4%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

121
38

75.2%
23.6%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

143
23

85.6%
13.8%

EvelY Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

130
28

78.3%
16.9%

Some of the Time

4.2%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

132
26

80.0%
15.8%

Some of the Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

0.6%

2016

Evaluation of Judge James R. Swanson: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

132
15

89.2%
10.1%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

137
23

85.6%
14.4%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

142
21

86.6%
12.8%

EvelY Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

0.0%

0.0%

123
35

75.9%
21.6%

Some of the Time

2.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

124
36

76.5%
22.2%

Some of the Time

0.6%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge allows lawyers appropriate
latitude in presentation of their case

Every Time
Frequently
The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.6%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge James R. Swanson: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

123
31

75.9%
19.1%

Some of the Time

4.3%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

129
31

79.6%
19.1%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

127
32

79.4%
20.0%

0.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

132
32

79.0%
19.2%

Some of the Time

1.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

139
20

84.2%
12.1%

2.4%

1.2%

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is faithful to the law

Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge James R. Swanson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

119
43

72.1%
26.1%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

132
30

80.0%
18.2%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.6%

Never

0.0%

137
23

83.0%
13.9%

Needs Improvement

1.8%

Unsatisfactory

1.2%

5.4%

2.3%

120

92.3%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Excellent
Good

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable C. Randall Lowe


Judge of the Circuit Court
28th Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Perfonnance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and infonnation for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 perfonnance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation ofthis report also received surveys that included 13 ofthe 23 perfonnancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each perfonnance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are. combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular perfonnance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 120 completed surveys for Judge C. Randall Lowe.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge C. Randall Lowe: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Every Time
Frequently

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Percent

108
7

93.1%
6.0%

Some of the Time

0.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

115
2

98.3%
1.7%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

93
8

89.4%
7.7%

Some of the Time

1.9%

Rarely
Never

0.0%
1.0%

Every Time

89

86.4%

10

9.7%

3.9%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Number

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge C. Randall Lowe: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

115

95.8%

Frequently

3.3%

Some of the Time

0.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

104
9

92.0%
8.0%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

109
10

90.8%
8.3%

Some of the Time

0.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

ll4
4

95.0%
3.3%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

llO
8

91.7%
6.7%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge C. Randall Lowe: E valuation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

92
5

93.9%
5.1%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never
EvelY Time
Frequently

94
8

92.2%
7.8%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

III

94.1%
5.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

90
11

89.1%
10.9%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

86
13

83.5%
12.6%

Some of the Time

3.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

1.0%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge C. Randall Lowe: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

EvelY T ime
Frequently

89
10

86.4%
9.7%

Some of the Time

3.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

90
11

86.5%
10.6%

Some of the Time

2.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Ever), Time
Frequently

83
11

82.2%
10.9%

4.0%

Rarely

3.0%

Never

0.0%

105
10

88.2%
8.4%

Some of the Time

3.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

115
3

95.8%
2.5%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge C. Randall Lowe: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

95
21

80.5%
17.8%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

104
12

88.9%
10.3%

Some of the Time

0.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

107
11

89.2%
9.2%

Needs Improvement

1.7%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

11

12.8%

0.0%

75

87.2%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Excellent
Good

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Craig D. Johnston


Judge of the Circuit Court
31st Judicial Circuit

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation ofthis report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddress ed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 145 completed surveys for Judge Craig D. Johnston.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Craig D. Johnston: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

125
15

86.8%
10.4%

Some of the Time

2.l%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

134
9

92.4%
6.2%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

123
12

87.2%
8.5%

2.1%

0.7%
1.4%

119

85.0%

12

8.6%

4.3%

1.4%
0.7%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

0.7%

Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Craig D. Johnston: Evaluation Summary


Survey Respouses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

Number

Percent

Every Time

127

88.2%

Frequently

11

7.6%

Some of the Time

4.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

103
21

77.4%
15.8%

Some of the Time

4.5%

Rarely

1.5%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Never

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Some of the Time

86.9%
7.6%

4.1%
0.7%

Never

0.7%
122
12

84.1%
8.3%

Some of the Time

4.8%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

2.1%

120
14

82.8%
9.7%

Some of the Time

4.8%

Rarely

2.1%

Never

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

126
11

Rarely

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

0.8%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Craig D. Johnston: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time

104

91.2%

Frequently

6.1%

Some of the Time

1.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.9%

Every Time

111

80.4%

Frequently

23

16.7%

2.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

107

77.5%

22

15.9%

5.1%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

0.7%

Never

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.7%

Every Time

108

80.0%

Frequently

18

13.3%

Some of the Time

3.7%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

2.2%

Every Time

105

75.5%

Frequently

24

17.3%

Some of the Time

5.8%

Rarely
Never

0.7%
1

0.7%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Craig D. Johnston: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time

103

74.1%

Frequently

21

15.1%

Some of the Time

12

8.6%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

1.4%

Every T ime

100

71.4%

Frequently

25

17.9%

Some of the Time

13

9.3%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

EvelY Time

89

65.0%

Frequently

26

19.0%

18

13.1%

2.2%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

The judge's decisions are clear

0.7%

Every Time

96

67.6%

Frequently

31

2l.8%

Some of the Time

12

8.5%

Rarely

1.4%
0.7%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

118

84.9%

13

9.4%

2.9%

2.2%
0.7%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Craig D. Johnston: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall perfOimance

Number

Percent

Every Time

99

71.2%

Frequently

29

20.9%

Some of the Time

5.8%

Rarely

2.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

81

57.0%

Frequently

32

22.5%

Some of the Time

24

16.9%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.0%

Excellent

111

76.6%

Good

25

17.2%

Needs Improvement

3.5%

Unsatisfactory

2.8%

18

16.8%

1.9%

87

81.3%

Better
In general, over the last three years, has the
Worse
judge's overall court-related performance
become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Alfred W. Bates, III


Judge of the General District Court
5th Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content .


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of97 completed surveys for Judge Alfred W. Bates, III.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Alfred W. Bates, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

75
18

77.3%
18.6%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

82
12

84.5%
12.4%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

84.5%

Frequently

82
13

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time

83

85.6%

10

10.3%

3.1%

1
0

1.0%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

13.4%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Alfred W. Bates, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

82

Frequently

11

84.5%
11.3%

Some of the Time

4.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

80
16

82.5%
16.5%

Some of the Time

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

86
8

88.7%
8.3%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

77
15

80.2%
15.6%

Some of the Time

4.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

81
12

83.5%
12.4%

Some of the Time

4.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Alfred W~ Bates, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

87
4

95.6%
4.4%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
12

87.6%
12.4%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

84
12

87.5%
12.5%

0.0%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Evel)' Time
Frequently

80
12

82.5%
12.4%

Some of the Time

4.1%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

69
15

71.1%
15.5%

Some of the Time

10

10.3%

Rarely

2.1%

Never

1.0%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Alfred W. Bates, lli: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

very T ime
Frequently

71
16

73.2%
16.5%

Some of the Time

8.3%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently

76
15

78.4%
15.5%

Some of the Time

4.1%

Rarely

2.1%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

81
15

83.5%
15.5%

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time


Rarely

The judge's decisions are clear

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

79
14

81.4%
14.4%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

79
14

81.4%
14.4%

4.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

2016

Evaluation of Judge Alfred W. Bates, ill: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

83
13

85.6%
13.4%
1.0%

Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

79
15

81.4%
15.5%

Some of the Time

3.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

72
19

75.8%
20.0%

Needs Improvement

3.2%

Unsatisfactory

1.1%

11

12.6%

0.0%

76

87.4%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable James J. O'Connell, III


Judge of the General District Court
12th Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report

The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement


resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 136 completed surveys for Judge James J. O'Connell, III.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge James J. O'Connell, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

110
23

80.9%
16.9%

Some of the Time

2.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

120
14

88.2%
10.3%

Some of the Time

1.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

115
17

85.2%

Some of the Time

2.2%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

114

84.4%

20

14.8%

Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

12.6%

0.7%
0
0

0.0%
0.0%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge James J. O' Connell, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor
Number

Percent

115
17

84.6%
12.5%

Some of the Time

2.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

112
22

83.6%
16.4%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

121
12

89.6%
8.9%

Some of the Time

1.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

110
18

81.5%
13.3%

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

112
13

83.6%
9.7%

6.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

0.8%
0

0.0%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge James J. O'Connell, III: EvaloatioD Sunlmary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Number

Percent

103
10

89.6%
8.7%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

123
13

90.4%
9.6%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

ll8
17

87.4%
12.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

117
15

86.0%
11.0%

Some of the Time

2.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

107
22

78.7%
16.2%

Some of the Time

5.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge allows lawyers appropriate
latitude in presentation of their case

Every Time
Frequently
The judge displays knowledge of the law

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge James J. O'ConneU, III: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is faithful to the law

Some of the Time

Number

Percent

109
20

80.2%
14.7%

4.4%

Rarely
Never

0.0%

117
17

86.0%
12.5%

Some of the Time

1.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

123
13

90.4%
9.6%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

124
9

91.2%
6.6%

Some ofthe Time

1.5%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

113
16

83.7%
11.9%

Some of the Time

3.7%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
bias or prejudice

0.7%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge James J. O'Connell, 1II: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Judge's overall performance

Percent

98
33

73.7%
24.8%

Some of the Time

0.8%

Rarely

0.8%

Never

0.0%

107
23

81.1%
17.4%

Some of the Time

1.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

110
21

82.1%
15.7%

Needs Improvement

2.2%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

13

10.4%

2.4%

109

87.2%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Number

Excellent
Good

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Michael Joseph Cassidy


Judge of the General District Court
19th Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
.
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 ofthe 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
.
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 100 completed surveys for Judge Michael Joseph Cassidy.

2
2016

EvaJuatioD of Judge Michael Joseph Cassidy: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

67
28

67.0%
28.0%

Some of the Time

5.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

80
18

80.8%
18.2%

Some of the Time

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

81.6%

Frequently

80
15

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely
Never

0.0%
1.0%

Every Time

79

81.4%

16

16.5%

1.0%

1
0

1.0%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

15.3%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Michael Joseph Cassidy: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

74

Frequently

20

74.8%
20.2%

Some of the Time

5.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every T ime
Frequently

69
27

71.9%
28.1%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

81
15

81.8%
15.2%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every T ime
Frequently

71
20

71.0%
20.0%

Some of the Time

8.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently

68
22

68.7%
22.2%

Some of the Time

7.1%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Michael Jo epb Cassidy: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor
Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Number

Percent

72
11

84.7%
12.9%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

88
11

88.0%
11.0%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time


Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

82
15

83.7%
15.3%

0.0%

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

62
29

62.6%
29.3%

Some of the Time

6.1%

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

1.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently

68
23

68.7%
23.2%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Michael Joseph Cassidy: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

67
24

67.7%
24.2%

Some of the Time

5.1%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently

78
16

78.8%
16.2%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never
Every Time
Frequently

79
19

79.8%
19.2%

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

77
20

77.8%
20.2%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

1.0%

Some of the Time

1.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

75
13

77.3%
13.4%

6.2%

2.1%

1.0%

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Micbacl Josepb Cassidy: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

In general, over the last twelve months, has


the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

76
24

76.0%
24.0%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

80
19

80.8%
19.2%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

68
26

68.7%
26.3%

Needs Improvement

3.0%

Unsatisfactory

2.0%

Better

6.9%

Worse

2.3%

Stayed the Same

79

90.8%

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable J. Gregory Ashwell


Judge of the General District Court
20th Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail. .

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 117 completed surveys for Judge J. Gregory Ashwell.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge J. Gregory Ashwell: Evaluation Summal]


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

65
40

55.6%
34.2%

Some of the Time

11

9.4%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

77
28

65.8%
23.9%

Some of the Time

12

10.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

70.9%

Frequently

83
30

25.6%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely
Never

2
0

1.7%
0.0%

Every Time

88

75.2%

27

23.1%

0.0%

2
0

1.7%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

EvaJuation of Judge J. Gregory Ashwell: E valuation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

79

68.1%

Frequently

20

17.2%

Some of the Time

13

11.2%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

86
24

74.8%
20.9%

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

93
21

79.5%
18.0%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

71
25

61.7%
21.7%

Some of the Time

15

13.0%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

72
26

62.6%
22.6%

Some of the Time

12

10.4%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.9%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge J. Gregory Ashwell: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

73
20

73.0%
20.0%

Some of the Time

5.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

99
17

84.6%
14.5%

0.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

95
20

81.9%
17.2%

0.9%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every T ime
Frequently

67
32

58.8%
28.1%

Some of the Time

11

9.7%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

83
26

71.6%
22.4%

Some of the Time

4.3%

Rarely

1.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

2016

Evaluation of Judge J. Gregory Ashwell: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

EvelY Time
Frequently

74
33

64.4%
28.7%

Some of the Time

5.2%

Rarely

1.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

78
32

66.7%
27.4%

Some of the Time

6.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

93
23

80.2%
19.8%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
27

73.3%
23.3%

Some of the Time

3.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

74
24

63.8%
20.7%

Some of the Time

13

11.2%

Rarely

4.3%

Never

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

The judge performs judicial duties without


bias or prejudice

2016

Evaluation of Judge J. Gregory Ashwell: Evaluation SUlllmary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

96
19

82.1%
16.2%

Some of the Time

1.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

90
24

76.9%
20.5%

Some of the Time

2.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

64
35

55.7%
30.4%

Needs Improvement

15

13.0%

Unsatisfactory

0.9%

19

20.4%

2.2%

72

77.4%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Rufus A. Banks, Jr.


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
1st Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and infor~ation for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 143 completed surveys for Judge Rufus A. Banks, Jr.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Rufus A. Banks, J.,.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

124
14

86.7%
9.8%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

130
9

90.9%
6.3%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

127
11

89.4%

2.1%

0.7%
0.0%

126

88.1%

14

9.8%

1.4%

0.7%
0.0%

very T ime
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is conscientious in the
performance of judicial duties

Some of the Time


Rarely
Never

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

7.8%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Rufus A. Banks, Jr.: Evaluation Summary

Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

128

89.5%

11

7.7%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

115
25

80.4%
17.5%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

126
15

88.1%
10.5%

Some of the Time

1.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

119
17

84.4%
12.1%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

121
17

85.2%
12.0%

Some of the Time

1.4%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

Every Time
Frequently
The judge requires court participants to
display respect toward one another

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Every Time
Frequently
The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge Rufus A. Banks, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Every T ime
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

Some of the Time

118
15

86.8%
11.0%

0.7%
0.7%

Never

0.7%
119
21

83.2%
14.7%

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

122
19

85.3%
13.3%

1.4%

0.0%

0.0%

118
21

82.5%
14.7%

Some of the Time

1.4%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

121
17

84.6%
11.9%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every T ime
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely
Never
Every Time
Frequently

Every Time
Frequently
The judge displays knowledge of the law

Percent

Rarely

Every Time
Frequently

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

Number

2016

Evaluation of Judge Rufus A. Banks, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Number

Percent

119
15

84.4%
10.6%

Some of the Time

4.3%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

124
15

86.7%
10.5%

Some of the Time

1.4%

Rarely

1.4%

Never

0.0%

123
17

86.0%
11.9%

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

122
17

85.3%
11.9%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

119
15

86.2%
10.9%

1.5%

1.5%

0.0%

Every T ime
Frequently
The judge is faithful to the law

Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Rufus A. Banks, Jr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

121
18

85.2%
12.7%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

113
23

80.1%
16.3%

Some of the Time

2.8%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

0.0%

125
14

87.4%
9.8%

Needs Improvement

2.8%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

5.9%

0.0%

127

94.1%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge starts court on time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Excellent
Good

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Larry D. Willis, Sr.


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
1st Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf ofthe
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report

The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement


resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of99 completed surveys for Judge Larry D. Willis, Sr.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Larry D. Willis, Sr.: Evaluation Summ3l"Y


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

62
26

62.6%
26.3%

Some of the Time

9.1%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

0.0%

EvelY Time
Frequently

67
24

67.7%
24.2%

Some of the Time

8.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

64.7%

Frequently

64
28

28.3%

Some of the Time

5.1%

Rarely
Never

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

1.0%
1.0%

63

63.6%

30

30.3%

3.0%

2.0%
1.0%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Larry D. Willis, Sr.: Evaluation Summa ..y


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

64
23

64.7%
23.2%

Some of the Time

9.1%

Rarely

3.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

63
30

63.6%
30.3%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

69
25

69.7%
25.3%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently

55
31

55.6%
31.3%

Some of the Time

10

10.1%

Rarely

3.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

56
26

56.6%
26.3%

Some of the Time

14

14.1%

Rarely

3.0%

Never

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Larry D. Willis, Sr.: Evaluation SlLmmary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

68
25

72.3%
26.6%
1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

75
23

75.8%
23.2%

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

76
21

76.8%
21.2%

2.0%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

57
27

57.6%
27.3%

Some of the Time

9.1%

Rarely

3.0%

Never

3.0%

Every Time
Frequently

66
24

66.7%
24.2%

Some of the Time

7.1%

Rarely

1.0%

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

Percent

Some of the Time

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

Number

Never

1.0%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Larry D. Willis, Sr.: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

Frequently

55
32

56.1%
32.7%

Some of the Time

8.2%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently

65
32

65.7%
32.3%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

70
29

70.7%
29.3%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

64
32

65.3%
32.7%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

56
27

59.6%
28.7%

9.6%

2.1%

0.0%

Every Time
The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

. The judge's decisions are clear

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Larry D. Willis, Sr.: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

64
29

67.4%
30.5%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

62
29

62.6%
29.3%

Some of the Time

8.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

60
28

62.5%
29.2%

Needs Improvement

5.2%

Unsatisfactory

3.1%

6.2%

6.2%

71

87.7%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable M. Randolph Carlson, II


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
4th Judicial District

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 139 completed surveys for Judge M. Randolph Carlson, II.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge M. Randolph Carlson, II: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

66
43

47.5%
30.9%

Some of the Time

24

17.3%

3.6%

Rarely

0.7%

Never

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Every Time
Frequently

93
33

66.9%
23.7%

Some of the Time

10

7.2%

Rarely

2.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

70.5%

Frequently

98
32

23.0%

Some of the Time

5.8%

Rarely
Never

0.0%
0.7%

Every Time

92

67.2%

35

25.6%

5.8%

2
0

1.5%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge M. Randolph Carlson, II: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

92

66.2%

30

21.6%

Some of the Time

12

8.6%

Rarely

3.6%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

97
32

71.3%
23.5%

Some of the Time

5.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

92
34

66.7%
24.6%

Some of the Time

11

8.0%

Rarely

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

95
30

68.4%
21.6%

Some of the Time

10

7.2%

Rarely

2.9%

Never

0.0%

101
23

72.7%
16.6%

Some of the Time

6.5%

Rarely

4.3%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge treats all parties in an impartial
manner

0.7%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge M. Randolpb Carlson, II: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

93
25

74.4%
20.0%

Some of the Time

3.2%

Rarely

1.6%

Never
Every Time
Frequently

105
29

75.5%
20.9%

3.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

108
22

77.7%
15.8%

5.8%

0.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

74
39

53.6%
28.3%

Some of the Time

19

13.8%

Rarely

3.6%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge expects professional behavior of
Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

0.8%

Never

The judge displays knowledge of the law

0.7%

Every Time
Frequently

98
32

71.5%
23.4%

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely

1
0

0.7%

Never

0.0%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge M. Randolph Carlson, U: Evaluation

ummary

Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

Number

Percent

Every T ime
Frequently

94
30

69.1%
22.1%

Some of the Time

6.6%

Rarely

2.2%

Never

0.0%

104
29

75.4%
21.0%

Some of the Time

2.2%

Rarely

1.5%

Never

0.0%

107
26

78.7%
19.1%

2.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

106
29

76.3%
20.9%

Some of the Time

2.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge communicates effectively

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

Every Time
Frequently
The judge's decisions are clear

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

0.7%
99
23

72.8%
16.9%

5.9%

3.7%
0.7%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Nl. Randolph Carlson, U: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

70
44

51.9%
32.6%

Some of the Time

14

10.4%

Rarely

3.7%

Never

1.5%

EvelY Time
Frequently

97
31

70.3%
22.5%

Some of the Time

10

7.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

89
37

65.4%
27.2%

Needs Improvement

5.2%

Unsatisfactory

2.2%

7.3%

5.5%

95

87.2%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Thomas W. Carpenter


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
7th Judicial District

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report

The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement


resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 101 completed surveys for Judge Thomas W. Carpenter.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Thomas W. Carpenter: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

77
19

76.2%
18.8%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

l.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
13

84.2%
12.9%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

88.0%

Frequently

88
12

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0
0

0.0%

85

85.0%

15

15.0%

0.0%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

~ever

Every Time
Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

12.0%

O . O~fo

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Thomas W. Carpenter: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

83

Frequently

15

82.2%
14.9%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

87
12

86.1%
11.9%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

84
17

83.2%
16.8%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

87
12

86.1%
11.9%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
14

84.2%
13.9%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge Thomas W. Carpenter: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

80
11

85.1%
11.7%

Some of the Time

2.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never
Every Time
Frequently

88
13

87.1%
12.9%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

84
16

83.2%
15.8%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

1.1%

1.0%
0

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

83
13

82.2%
12.9%

Some of the Time

4.0%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

83
17

82.2%
16.8%

Some of the Time

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Thomas W. Carpenter: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

76
22

76.0%
22.0%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
14

84.2%
13.9%

Some of the Time

2.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
13

84.2%
12.9%

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

84
14

83.2%
13.9%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
11

85.9%
11.1%

Some of the Time

3.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

The judge performs judicial duties without


bias or prejudice

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Thomas W. Carpenter: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

68
23

70.1%
23.7%

Some of the Time

6.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every T ime
Frequently

80

13

80.0%
13.0%

Some of the Time

7.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

89
11

89.0%
11.0%

Needs Improvement

0.0%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

4.6%

1.1%

83

94.3%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Shannon O. Hoehl


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
15th Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report

The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement


resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.
II. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 113 completed surveys for Judge Shannon O. Hoehl.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Shannon O. Hoehl: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

Number

Percent

55
46

48.7%
40.7%

Some of the Time

7.1%

Rarely

2.7%

Every Time
Frequently

0.9%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

80
26

70.8%
23.0%

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely

1.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

79.7%

Frequently

90
18

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time

87

77.7%

21

18.8%

3.6%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

15.9%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Shannon O. Hoehl: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

76

67.3%

Frequently

24

21.2%

Some of the Time

10

8.9%

Rarely

2.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
22

76.6%
19.8%

Some of the Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

93
16

82.3%
14.2%

Some of the Time

3.5%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

78
22

69.6%
19.6%

Some of the Time

8.0%

Rarely

2.7%

Never

0.0%

Every T ime
Frequently

77
23

68.1%
20.4%

Some of the Time

10

8.9%

Rarely

2.7%

Never

0.0%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge Shannon O. Hoehl: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

88
8

90.7%
8.3%
1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

97
15

85.8%
13.3%

0.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

93
18

83.8%
16.2%

0.0%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

72
30

63.7%
26.6%

Some of the Time

7.1%

Rarely

2.7%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

81
26

71.7%
23.0%

Some of the Time

3.5%

Rarely

1.8%

Never

0.0%

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

Percent

Some of the Time

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

Number

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Shannon O. Hoehl: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

81
21

71.7%
18.6%

Some of the Time

10

8.9%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

85
25

75.2%
22.1%

Some of the Time

1.8%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

95
15

84.1%
13.3%

1.8%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

87
22

77.0%
19.5%

Some of the Time

2.7%

Rarely

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

85
17

75.9%
15.2%

8.0%

0.9%

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Shannon O. Hoehl: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

78
28

69.6%
25.0%

Some of the Time

4.5%
0.9%

Rarely

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

89
19

78.8%
16.8%

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

77
27

68.8%
24.1%

Needs Improvement

6.3%

Unsatisfactory

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

0.9%

16

16.2%

l.0%

82

82.8%

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Julian W. Johnson


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
15th Judicial District

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial re-'
election process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 83 completed surveys for Judge Julian W. Johnson.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Julian W. Johnson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

51
26

62.2%
31.7%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

66
14

79.5%
16.9%

Some of the Time

3.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

79.3%

Frequently

65
14

Some of the Time

3.7%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time

68

81.9%

12

14.5%

2.4%

1
0

1.2%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

17.1%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Julian W. Johnson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for'all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

63

76.8%

14

17.1%

Some of the Time

4.9%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

66
14

81.5%
17.3%

Some of the Time

1.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

68
11

81.9%
13.3%

Some of the Time

4.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

56
18

67.5%
21.7%

Some of the Time

9.6%

Rarely

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

1.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

59
15

72.0%
18.3%

Some of the Time

8.5%

Rarely

1.2%

Never

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Julian W. Johnson: Evaluation ummary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

70
7

89.7%
9.0%

Some of the Time

1.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

74
8

90.2%
9.8%

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

73
9

89.0%
11.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

57
16

68.7%
19.3%

Some of the Time

10.8%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

1.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

66
13

79.5%
15.7%

Some of the Time

4.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Julian W. Johnson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Ti me
Frequently

60
14

73.2%
17.1%

Some of the Time

8.5%

Rarely

l.2%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

62
14

74.7%
16.9%

Some of the Time

8.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

68
13

8l.9%
15.7%

2.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

63
14

76.8%
17.1%

Some of the Time

6.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

64
13

79.0%
16.1%

3.7%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

1.2%
0

0.0%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Julian W. Johnson: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

57
17

7l.3%
2l.3%

Some of the Time

6.3%

Rarely

l.3%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

59
18

72.8%
22.2%

Some of the Time

4.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

64
17

77.1%
20.5%

Needs Improvement

2.4%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

8.5%

0.0%

65

9l.6%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Constance H. Frogale


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
18th Judicial District

Prepared by:
Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory
L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report

The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement


resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.
II. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 106 completed surveys for Judge Constance H. Frogale.

2016

Evaluation of Judge Constance H. Frogale: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

76
25

72.4%
23.8%

Some of the Time

2.9%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

87
13

82.9%
12.4%

Some of the Time

4.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

79.1%

Frequently

83
17

Some of the Time

3.8%

Rarely
Never

1.0%
0.0%

Every Time

84

80.0%

16

15.2%

3.8%

1
0

1.0%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

16.2%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Constance H. Frogale: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

90

Frequently

10

86.5%
9.6%

Some of the Time

3.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

82
20

79.6%
19.4%

Some of the Time

1.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

79
22

75.2%
21.0%

Some of the Time

2.9%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

64
31

61.0%
29.5%

Some of the Time

7.6%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

72
21

68.6%
20.0%

Some of the Time

10

9.5%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Constance H. Frogale: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

81
12

86.2%
12.8%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

77
24

73.3%
22.9%

3.8%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

77
24

74.0%
23.1%

2.9%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

71
25

67.6%
23.8%

Some of the Time

6.7%

Rarely

1.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

67
26

63.8%
24.8%

Some of the Time

7.6%

Rarely

3.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

The judge displays knowledge of the law

2016

Evaluation of Judge Constance H. FI"ogale: Evaluation SUJIlmary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

69
24

65.7%
22.9%

Some of the Time

6.7%

Rarely

4.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

64
30

61.0%
28.6%

Some of the Time

10

9.5%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

78
25

74.3%
23.8%

1.9%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

very Ti me
Frequently

68
28

64.8%
26.7%

Some of the Time

8.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

71
23

68.9%
22.3%

5.8%

2.9%

0.0%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

The judge's decisions are clear

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

2016

Evaluation of Judge Constance H. Frogale: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

57
34

55.9%
33.3%

Some of the Time

8.8%

Rarely

2.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

51
33

50.0%
32.4%

Some of the Time

12

11.8%

Rarely

5.9%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

73
23

68.9%
21.7%

Needs Improvement

6.6%

Unsatisfactory

2.8%

16

16.8%

0.0%

79

83.2%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Pamela L. Brooks


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
20th Judicial District

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia

2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey. this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any response for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 117 completed surveys for Judge Pamela L. Brooks.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Pamela L. Brooks: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

25
33

21.4%
28.2%

Some of the Time

44

37.6%

Rarely

10

8.6%

Never

4.3%

Every Time
Frequently

36
35

30.8%
29.9%

Some of the Time

33

28.2%

Rarely

6.8%

Never

4.3%

Every Time

53.5%

Frequently

62
33

28.5%

Some of the Time

12

10.3%

Rarely
Never

6
3

5.2%
2.6%

Every Time

69

59.0%

25

21.4%

13

11.1%

6
4

5.1%
3.4%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

3
2016

Eva luation of Judge Pamela L. Brooks: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge shows respect for all court


participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

Number

Percent

Every Time

36

Frequently

36

30.8%
30.8%

Some of the Time

26

22.2%

Rarely

13

11.1%

Never

5.1%

Every Time
Frequently

60
39

53.1%
34.5%

Some of the Time

12

10.6%

Rarely

1.8%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

78
23

67.2%
19.8%

Some of the Time

10

8.6%

Rarely

2.6%

Never

1.7%

Every Time
Frequently

46
31

39.7%
26.7%

Some of the Time

25

21.6%

Rarely

5.2%

Never

6.9%

Every Time
Frequently

46
32

39.7%
27.6%

Some of the Time

25

21.6%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

7.8%

4
2016

Evaluation of Judge Pamela L. Brooks: Evaluation Summa!)'


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte


communications

Number

Percent

Every T ime
Frequently

76
22

72.4%
21.0%

Some of the Time

4.8%

Rarely

1.0%

Never

1.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

1.8%
0.9%

Never

0.9%
86
24

75.4%
21.1%

2.6%

0.9%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

40
29

34.8%
25.2%

Some of the Time

33

28.7%

Rarely

5.2%

Never

6.1%

EvelY Time
Frequently

60
29

51.7%
25 .0%

Some of the Time

17

14.7%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

5.2%

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

71.9%
24.6%

Rarely

Every Time
Frequently

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

82
28

5
2016

Evaluation of Judge Pamela L. Brooks: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

EvelY Time
Frequently

56
29

48.3%
25.0%

Some of the Time

20

17.2%

Rarely

4.3%

Never

5.2%

Every Time
Frequently

60
32

51.7%
27.6%

Some of the Time

17

14.7%

Rarely

6.0%

Never

0.0%

Eve!)' Time
Frequently

80
27

70.2%
23.7%

5.3%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time

0.9%

Rarely

The judge's decisions are clear

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

68
33

59.1%
28.7%

Some of the Time

11

9.6%

Rarely

1.7%

Never
Every Time
Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

0.9%
53
30

46.1%
26.1%

17

14.8%.

5.2%

7.8%

6
2016

Evaluation of Judge Pamela L. Brooks: Evaluation Summary


Snrvey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

Nnmber

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

54
39

47.4%
34.2%

Some of the Time

13

11.4%

Rarely

7.0%

Never

0.0%

62
38

53.9%
33.0%

Some of the Time

11

9.6%

Rarely

3.5%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

48
30

41.4%
25.9%

Needs Improvement

24

20.7%

Unsatisfactory

14

12.1%

Better

13

13.8%

Worse

7.5%

Stayed the Same

74

78.7%

Every Time
_ Frequently
The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

In general, over the last twelve months, has


the judge's overall court-related
performance become ....

7
2016

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM


REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

Evaluation of:

The Honorable Paul A. Tucker


Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
25th Judicial District

Prepared by:

Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory


L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University
on behalf of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program
Supreme Court of Virginia
2016

I. Program Purpose and Use of this Report


The Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE) Program provides a self-improvement
resource for judges and information for use by the General Assembly in the judicial reelection process. Code of Virginia 17.1-100. This report is submitted, as required under
that section, to be used in the re-election process.

II. Evaluation Methodology


The evaluation method was written surveys. For all judges, surveys were submitted by
attorneys who had appeared before the judge within a specified time period: 12 months
for district court judges; 3 years for circuit court judges. The survey instrument
completed by attorneys contained 23 performance-based factors drawn from the Canons
of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attorney surveys were
distributed and completed electronically.
For judges in circuit courts, jurors who served during a period of six months before the
compilation of this report also received surveys that included 13 of the 23 performancebased factors. The juror surveys were handed out, together with preaddressed, postage
paid envelopes, at the conclusion of jury service. The surveys were returned by the jurors
to VCU-SERL by mail.

III. Report Content


For each performance factor on the survey, this report presents the aggregate number of
responses and the corresponding percentage of responses for each category. The
responses of all surveyed groups are combined in these figures. Where a respondent
selected the response "Not Applicable" or simply did not select any respon~e for a
particular performance factor, it is treated as a non-response to that factor. Accordingly,
you may observe that the number of responses varies from factor to factor.
This report reflects a total of 93 completed surveys for Judge Paul A. Tucker.

2
2016

Evaluation of Judge Paul A. Tucker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Respouses

Performance Factor

The judge displays patience in the


courtroom

The judge is courteous in the courtroom

The judge is conscientious in the


performance of judicial duties

Number

Percent

73
19

78.5%
20.4%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

83
10

89.3%
10.8%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

79.4%

Frequently

73
15

Some of the Time

4.4%

Rarely
Never

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Every Time

72

77.4%

16

17.2%

5.4%

0
0

0.0%
0.0%

Frequently
The judge is diligent in the performance of
Some of the Time
judicial duties
Rarely
Never

16.3%

3
2016

Evaluation of Judge Paul A. Tucker: Evaluation Summa.-y


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Number

Percent

85
8

91.4%
8.6%

Some of the Time

0.0%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

66
22

72.5%
24.2%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

74
15

80.4%
16.3%

Some of the Time

3.3%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

72
18

77.4%
19.4%

Some of the Time

3.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

70
20

75.3%
21.5%

Some of the Time

3.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently
The judge shows respect for all court
participants

The judge requires court participants to


display respect toward one another

The judge is attentive to the proceedings

The judge exhibits fairness to all parties

The judge treats all parties in an impartial


manner

2016

Evaluation of Judge Paul A. Tucker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

Every Time
Frequently
The judge avoids inappropriate ex parte
communications

78
6

91.8%
7.1%
1.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

EvelY Time

77
14

82.8%
15.1%

2.2%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

74
17

80.4%
18.5%

1.1%

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

73
19

78.5%
20.4%

Some of the Time

1.1%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

67
18

72.0%
19.4%

Some of the Time

7.5%

The judge maintains order in the courtroom Some of the Time

The judge expects professional behavior of


Some of the Time
court participants
Rarely

The judge displays knowledge of the law

Percent

Some of the Time

Frequently

The judge allows lawyers appropriate


latitude in presentation of their case

Number

Rarely
Never

1.1%
0

0.0%

2016

Evaluation of Judge Paul A. Tucker: E valuation Summary


Survey Responses

Performance Factor

The judge is faithful to the law

The judge communicates effectively

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

67
19

72.8%
20.7%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

1.1%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

64
25

68.8%
26.9%

Some of the Time

3.2%

Rarely

1.1%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

73
16

78.5%
17.2%

3.2%

The judge is prompt in rendering decisions Some of the Time


Rarely

The judge's decisions are clear

1.1%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

68
17

73.1%
18.3%

Some of the Time

8.6%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time

76
14

83.5%
15.4%

1.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Frequently
The judge performs judicial duties without
Some of the Time
bias or prejudice
Rarely
Never

2016

Evaluation of Judge Paul A. Tucker: Evaluation Summary


Survey Responses
Performance Factor

The judge starts court on time

The judge uses courtroom time efficiently

Judge's overall performance

Number

Percent

Every Time
Frequently

62
25

67.4%
27.2%

Some of the Time

5.4%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Every Time
Frequently

60
24

65.9%
26.4%

Some of the Time

7.7%

Rarely

0.0%

Never

0.0%

Excellent
Good

62
26

67.4%
28.3%

Needs Improvement

4.4%

Unsatisfactory

0.0%

6.3%

0.0%

74

93.7%

Better
In general, over the last twelve months, has
Worse
the judge's overall court-related
performance become ...
Stayed the Same

7
2016