John J. Briggs

Commission: meets standards (8–0)

The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by an 8-0 vote, with two commissioners absent, finds that Judge John J. Briggs MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

The Commission evaluates judges on 6 standards: integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. Evaluation data includes courtroom observations, a personal interview, legal rulings, and participant surveys.

The Commission found Judge Briggs to be an exceptionally efficient, knowledgeable, and kind jurist. He maintains high courtroom standards with a confident, approachable demeanor. Strong personal awareness allows him to read between the lines and adapt seamlessly to the uniqueness of each case. Survey results show highly consistent scores across all categories. Judge Briggs genuinely enjoys his work.

Originally appointed to the Weld County Court bench in December 2010, Judge Briggs presides over Division 6, managing misdemeanor offenses, traffic violations, bond hearings, and county-level civil cases. His prior legal career includes the Central Research Staff for the Kansas Court of Appeals (1993–1996), 8 years as a Deputy Public Defender across Kansas and Colorado (1996–2004), and private defense practice in Greeley (2004–2010). He earned his law degree from the Washburn University School of Law in 1993. Outside the courtroom, Judge Briggs serves on the Weld Food Bank Board of Directors (previously as President and Vice President), volunteers as a mock trial judge, and participates in the statewide Judicial Peer-to-Peer coaching program. The Commission believes Judge Briggs is a distinct asset to the 19th Judicial District.

State evaluation page · 2026 survey report (PDF)

Commission: meets standards Split vote 6–1

The Nineteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance finds that the Honorable John J. Briggs Meets Performance Standards. Six members of the Commission voted that Judge Briggs met judicial performance standards, with one voting no, and three absent. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.

Judge Briggs presides over a criminal docket that includes a mix of misdemeanor, traffic offenses, and civil cases. He presents a calm demeanor, and effectively manages his docket. An area he has worked on is slowing down his speech to ensure he is understood. Through observation, his speech is at an effective speaking rate that is clear and concise. Judge Briggs is patient and uses language everyone understands while using legal knowledge when explaining his rulings. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluation and interview.

The surveys were completed by forty-six attorneys and twenty-nine non-attorneys who responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Briggs. The Commission reviewed the survey responses. Overall, Judge Briggs has a rating of 3.3, below the 3.4 average of all County Court Judges (the maximum score is 4.0). In response to the question, do you think Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards? 89% of the attorney respondents answered yes, meets performance standards, and 11% answered no, does not meet performance standards. 67% of the non-attorney respondents answered yes, meets performance standards, and 33% answered no, does not meet performance standards. In the other categories he rated as high in communications, he rated average or just lower than average in case management, diligence, application of knowledge, demeanor, and rated lower than average in fairness. In the fairness category, non-attorneys rated Judge Briggs 2.2 when treating people fairly who represent themselves. When asked whether Judge Briggs is fair and impartial to both sides, attorneys rated him 3.2. One of Judge Briggs's strengths is communication; it is just as important that attorneys and non-attorneys feel treated fairly and without bias, even when a person is representing themselves in court. The Commission looks forward to Judge Briggs being cautious of this.

Judge Briggs was born in New York and grew up in Leonia, New Jersey. In 1990, he earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree with a double major in English and Philosophy. He earned his law degree from the Washburn University School of Law. In 2001, he relocated to Colorado, where he worked for three years as a Deputy State Public Defender then spent six years in private practice. In December 2010, Judge Briggs was appointed to the County Court Bench, and was sworn in on January 24, 2011. Judge Briggs is active in the community and is serving his 2nd 6-year term as a board of directors for the Weld Food Bank. Judge Briggs feels a strong community requires governmental leaders to contribute in ways to build relationships beyond the workday. Judge Briggs and his wife reside in Windsor.

State evaluation page · 2022 survey report (PDF)

Commission: meets standards (10–0)

The Nineteenth Judicial District Commissioners on Judicial Performance recommends by a unanimous vote (10-0) that Judge John Joseph Briggs MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

Judge Briggs was appointed to the Nineteenth Judicial District as County Judge on January 21, 2011 and was sworn in on January 24, 2011. Upon graduation from Washburn University School of Law in 1993, he worked for the Kansas Court of Appeals until 1996. He has worked as a Public Defender in both Kansas and Colorado for six years and subsequently practiced in a private law office until 2010. Judge Briggs is active in the community, serving on the Board of Directors of the Weld Food Bank and related committees, as well as a volunteer judge for the annual high school mock trial competition. The Commission reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had experience with Judge Briggs in the courtroom, conducted a personal interview, read and reviewed written opinions he authored, and observed him in court. In response to the question, “Do you think Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards?” 91% of all respondents answered yes; 5% answered no; and 4% had no opinion. There were totals of 88 non-attorney respondents and 24 attorneys responding. Of the attorneys responding to the survey, 88% answered yes, Judge Briggs does meet performance standards and 13% answered no. Of the non-attorney respondents, 92% answered yes, 3% answered no, and 5% had no opinion. The bulk of Judge Briggs’ workload involves criminal cases (75%) with the other 25% involving civil cases. Communication skills and demeanor were two areas of strength in the surveys and were also demonstrated as positive skills in the courtroom and in the interview. Non-attorneys rated him higher on demeanor than all other county judges were rated. In another area of high performance, both attorneys and non-attorneys rated Judge Briggs higher in diligence than other county judges were rated. His written cases are clear with his logic and thinking easy to follow. Judge Briggs tries to make sure all in the courtroom understand what the issues are and can follow the proceedings. He makes a special effort to ensure that jurors have a positive experience in the courtroom. He sees the judicial process as a team effort and expresses a strong belief that all who work in the judicial system are treated as equals. Overall, Judge Briggs scored consistently on the survey questions regarding knowledge and application of law, communications, demeanor, diligence, and fairness. For case management, attorneys rated him lower in this area. However, compared to ratings by attorneys regarding case management, Judge Briggs scored only slightly lower than all other county judges. Judge Briggs clearly takes the responsibility of being a judge seriously and tries to make the justice system work for all in the community. Based on these findings the Commission unanimously agreed that Judge Briggs meets judicial performance standards.

State evaluation page · 2018 survey report (PDF)