The six judicial performance evaluation committees which analyzed the qualifications and skills of non-partisan judges seeking retention on the November 4, 2008 general election conducted their work based on a series of Judicial Performance Standards.

In making their recommendations regarding retention, the committees analyzed the results of a lawyer survey, the results of a survey of jurors, and written opinions issued by each judge.

Lawyer Survey
For appellate judges, lawyers were asked to evaluate judges on 9 specific criteria, as follows:

1. Being fair and impartial toward each side of the case.
2. Writing opinions that are clear.
3. Writing opinions that adequately explain the basis of the court’s decision.
4. Issuing opinions in a timely manner.
5. Allowing parties to present their arguments and answer.
6. Making decisions without regard to possible criticism.
7. Refraining from reaching issues that need not be decided.
8. Treating parties equally regardless of race, sex or economic status.
9. Being courteous toward attorneys.

For trial judges, lawyers were asked to evaluate judges on 16 specific criteria, as follows:

1. Treats people equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, economic status, or any other factor.
2. Displays fairness and impartiality toward each side of the case.
3. Is not affected by partisan considerations
4. Is prepared for hearings and trials
5. Allows parties latitude to present their arguments.
6. Bases decisions on evidence and arguments.
7. Gives reasons for rulings.
8. Demonstrates appropriate demeanor on bench.
9. Maintains and requires proper order and decorum in the courtroom.
10. Is competent in the law.
11. Rulings on dispositive motions state reasons and consistently apply the substantive law.
12. Effectively uses pre-trial procedure to narrow and define the issues
13. Understands rules of procedure and evidence.
14. Weighs all evidence fairly and impartially before rendering a decision.
15. Written opinions and orders are clear.
16. Clearly explains all oral decisions.

For both appellate and trial judges, lawyers’ evaluations were converted into a numerical score between 1 and 5, with 1 being the poorest and 5 being the best. The number of responses and the average score is listed for each criteria.

Juror Surveys
Members of the public who had served on juries before trial judges during the last two calendar years were asked to complete a survey composed of “yes/no” answers.  Questions on the juror survey are as follows:

1. Did the judge treat people equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, economic status, or any other factor?
2. Did the judge appear to be free from bias or prejudice?
3. Did the judge act in a dignified manner?
4. Did the judge act with patience?
5. Did the judge appear to be well-prepared for the case?
6. Did the judge clearly explain court procedure?
7. Did the judge clearly explain the legal issues of the case?
8. Did the judge maintain control over the courtroom?
9. Did the judge promote public confidence in the courts?
10. Did the judge clearly explain the responsibilities of the jury?

It is important to note that juries do not serve in appellate courts, so no jury information was involved in the evaluation of appellate judges seeking retention.

Written Opinions
Each appellate judge was asked to provide five (5) written opinions for use by the evaluation committee.  The committee was charged with the responsibility to review the decisions authored by each judge for adherence to the record, clarity of expression, logical reasoning, and application of law to the facts presented.

Each trial judge was asked to provide one (1) written opinion for use by the evaluation committee.  The committee was charged with the responsibility to review the decision authored by each judge for thoroughness of findings, clarity of expression, logical reasoning, and application of the law to the facts presented.

Want to know more about Missouri's judicial selection and retention system? Click here.