Connecticut has a Judicial Performance Evaluation program. Its objectives are the development and improvement of the individual judge and the bench as a whole. The performance evaluation is implemented by questionnaires given to trial lawyers and jurors in certain cases. The information furnished assists the Chief Court Administrator’s office in the assignment of judges as well as in the development of seminars and continuing judicial education programs. The information is also synthesized and submitted to the Judiciary Committee and the Judicial Selection Commission at the time of reappointment. The synthesis looks something like this:

The results compare "all judges combined" to the individual judge. From the above example it is easy to focus on the problem area: "legal ability." All judges combined scored 88.1 but the imaginary judge in the illustration scored 11.6 points below the average.

In 1983 Connecticut was one of six states which participated in a project sponsored by the National Center for State Courts to develop a procedure for judicial performance evaluation. Former Chief Justice John Speziale appointed a committee, chaired by former Chief Justice Ellen Peters, to study and develop a plan for the evaluation of judges. The report and recommendations of the committee suggested three categories of criteria for evaluation: demeanor, legal ability and judicial management skills, and recommended the use of questionnaires as the best method of gathering this information. The questionnaires focus on courtroom behavior of trial judges, and add "attitude" to the three areas recommended.

The program began in 1984. An advisory panel was appointed that year, consisting of representation from the legislature, academia, attorneys and judges. For a period of time the program was expanded to appellate court judges, but abandoned in 1995 because the questionnaires did not provide useful information. The trial judge questionnaires have been revised since the program started, most recently in 1996, to enable the returned questionnaires to be scanned into a computer. This brought about the deletion of the "comment" section which could not be read by an optical mark scanner. At a recent Advisory Committee meeting it was voted to restore the "comments" section to the questionnaire, as members of both the Judicial Selection Commission and the Judiciary Committee felt that the comments served a useful purpose. This recommendation of the Committee will be made to the Chief Court Administrator and the Chief Justice for their consideration.

The questionnaires provide very useful data about each judge, but can be skewed in two ways: ignoring them, or, in those circumstances where a lawyer appears before the same judge regularly, by slanting the answers unfairly. The risk of this occurring is greatest on the criminal side, where public defenders and prosecutors may appear before the same judge for months, and in some cases, years.

The problems of experienced trial lawyers "tossing" the questionnaires poses a greater problem. The "slanted" questionnaires can be very damaging to a judge, but as time passes and assignments change the questionnaires will regain their objectivity. But failing to respond results in a loss of information from a vital source: the experienced trial lawyers who have tried a case or part of a case before a particular judge. "Filing" the questionnaire in the wastebasket is believed to be widespread and should stop forthwith.

Although our evidence that experienced trial lawyers are not responding is anecdotal, the fact is, according to the Chief Court Administrator’s office, that only 65% of the attorneys’ questionnaires are returned. The return of attorney questionnaires from September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1999 are as follows:

A large portion of the lawyers who have the needed experience to accurately evaluate the conduct of a trial judge are not complying. This is an error of judgment which may be brought about by a concern that the completed questionnaire’s contents will make their way to the judge in question. The lawyer fears retribution and chooses the safer course – tossing it in the wastebasket.

But it is almost impossible for the information on an individual questionnaire to make its way to the trial judge. An explanation of how the questionnaires go out, come in, and are tabulated is useful. The source of this information is the Chief Court Administrator’s office.

Questionnaires are distributed to attorneys whenever a court proceeding has presented a meaningful opportunity to observe and evaluate a judge’s performance. These proceedings include full trials, partial trials in which the case settles after evidence is presented, mistrials, and hearings over one hour in length.

When the proceedings are concluded, the court clerk sends a questionnaire to the lead attorney on each side of the case. A cover letter indicating the case for which the questionnaire was distributed is attached to each questionnaire. The cover letter emphasizes the anonymity of the respondents and explains the uses made of the evaluation material. Only the judge’s name and the court location are indicated on the questionnaire when it is given to the attorney. No further identifying data is on the form. Once the clerk has distributed the questionnaire, the clerk’s office has no further contact with the questionnaire.

A separate questionnaire is distributed to all jurors who have entered the deliberation stage of a trial or who have participated in at least two days of a trial, regardless of whether the case entered the deliberation phase or their participation was as an alternate juror. There are fewer questions on this questionnaire, and those questions focus on demeanor and the management of the trial itself. Similar to the attorney questionnaire, only the judge’s name, court location, and nature of the case (civil/criminal) are indicated on the form when it is given to the juror. A stamped envelope addressed to the Judicial Evaluation Administrator is provided to each juror for return of the questionnaire.

Individual attorney and juror logs sheets are used in the clerk’s offices to account for the distribution of each questionnaire and are returned to the Program Administrator for monitoring purposes. At the end of each quarter, the numbers of distributed questionnaires accounted for on the log sheets are compared to independent case flow statistics which identify the number of program-eligible proceedings conducted during that quarter. In this way, the Administrator is able to ensure strict adherence to the guidelines established for questionnaire distribution.

Anonymity of the questionnaire respondents has been a key component of the evaluation program from its inception. Strict safeguards are built into the system to protect the identities of the individual respondents.

All questionnaires are returned directly to the Program Administrator in the central office. The Administrator opens each questionnaire and replaces the judges’ names and the court locations with designated codes prior to computer entry of the evaluation data by the Program Assistant. The evaluation information then becomes part of a large computer data file. After entry into the computer, the actual questionnaires, filled out by the attorneys or jurors, are destroyed. Throughout this process only the Program Administrator and one staff person, who is responsible for data entry, have had access to the questionnaires. The judge never sees a completed questionnaire.

Once the questionnaires are processed, evaluation reports can be generated. Evaluation material is supplied to each judge as a composite report based on aggregate data. To assure the anonymity of the respondents, a minimum of 25 returned questionnaires are required before a printout of the evaluation data may be generated. This minimum is strictly enforced and applies each time a report is produced, i.e., at least 25 additional questionnaires must have been received since the last evaluation before a subsequent report may be run. The Chief Court Administrator is the only authority who may override this requirement.

Individual judges may request summaries of their aggregate data at any time. The request must be in writing, addressed to the Chief Court Administrator and must specifically state its purpose. If the request is for purposes consistent with the program’s objectives, it is then determined whether the minimum of 25 questionnaires have been returned since the last evaluation report. This requirement ensures that there is sufficient data to maintain respondent anonymity and also to provide meaningful information. The Judicial Advisory Panel believes that since the primary goal of the program is the improvement and development of the judge individual requests for evaluation data should be encouraged.

In addition to responding to requests for data from individual judges, evaluation material are regularly provided to all the judges. Within the confines of the minimum requirement of 25 returned attorney questionnaires, information is provided to newly appointed judges within 12 to 24 months of appointment, while subsequent printouts are provided between 24 and 30 months after the initial report.

Individual interviews, to aid the judges in interpreting the data, are conducted by the Deputy Chief Court Administrator or his designee. In 1999, from January to August, 52 evaluation interviews were conducted. These interviews cover the individual judge’s attorney and juror evaluation data, and the corresponding composite data for the bench as a whole. Each judge is provided with all of the evaluation material prior to a scheduled evaluation interview.

In order to assist the judges in placing the attorney and juror responses in perspective and in assessing their own courtroom behavior, a self-assessment questionnaire is sent to each judge prior to receiving the evaluation printouts. These questionnaires provide the judges with a basis for comparison when reviewing the aggregate attorney and juror responses. The self-assessment questionnaire was developed for the judges’ personal use and is not part of the official program evaluation.

In addition to disclosure to the judges, data gathered through the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program is required to be released in two other situations. First, the Judicial Selection Commission is statutorily authorized, under C.G.S. §2-40a, to request evaluation data. The data is used to aid the Commission in discharging its responsibility to recommend judges for reappointment or for elevation to a higher court. Second, the same statute provides for the Legislative Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary to receive data, again as part of the reappointment process. Release of program data under either circumstance must be authorized by the Chief Court Administrator.