2024 retention · District Court · 2nd Judicial District
6 percentile · rank 49 of 52
composite 0100
6 percentile · rank 101 of 107
composite 0100
22 17th percentile among peers · 23rd percentile statewide
14112
Composite index 8.01 among peers (7.01 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
2.80 of 4 · 8.65 percentile
2.303.80
2.78 of 4 · 8.65 percentile
2.273.80
53.00% 6.73 percentile
29.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 53.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 75.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.00median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 2.40median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Communications | 3.00median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Diligence | 2.50median 3.20 | 3.20 | |
| Demeanor | 3.30median 3.20 | 3.20 | |
| Fairness | 2.50median 3.10 | 3.10 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 9–0, with one Commissioner vacancy, that Judge Jay S. Grant MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance criteria are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Grant currently presides over criminal matters in the Denver District Court. Judge Grant meets all aspects of the performance criteria on which he is evaluated. Judge Grant’s written decisions are clear, thorough, and well-reasoned. His notable strengths, observed by the Commission and described in survey responses, include his commitment to allow people to be heard in his courtroom, his calm judicial temperament, and his treatment of all parties with respect. The Commission, based on its observation and analysis of survey responses, did not identify any evaluation category in which Judge Grant displayed a notable weakness as to the performance criteria. Judge Grant met the Court’s productivity benchmark for criminal courtrooms, completing approximately 90% of cases within 12 months.
The Commission met with the Chief Judge of Denver District Court to discuss challenges facing the court system and also met with the Denver District Attorney and a representative of the Denver Trial Office of the Colorado State Public Defender regarding Judge Grant’s performance. The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Grant and observed him during court proceedings. It also reviewed opinions he authored, comments received from interested parties during the evaluation, recordings from his courtroom, case management data, and judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who interacted with him. The surveys reflected personal opinions regarding Judge Grant in the categories of case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, diligence, demeanor, and fairness. A total of 18 attorneys and four non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Grant. The overall information and data reviewed supports the Commission’s recommendation that Judge Grant be retained.
Judge Grant was appointed to the District Court in 2016. He was raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He graduated from the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State University with a BA and MA, respectively. Judge Grant graduated from Oklahoma City University with a JD. Prior to his appointment, he was a trial attorney in the Denver Office of the Colorado State Public Defender.
2018 retention · District Court · 2nd Judicial District
66 percentile · rank 18 of 52
composite 0100
59 percentile · rank 52 of 128
composite 0100
32 4th percentile among peers · 11th percentile statewide
29158
Composite index 59.94 among peers (57.29 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.49 of 4 · 48.08 percentile
2.963.81
3.47 of 4 · 47.12 percentile
2.913.86
95.00% 84.62 percentile
44.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.53
- Say “meets standards”
- 95.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.41
- Say “meets standards”
- 82.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.56median 3.49 | 3.49 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.30median 3.43 | 3.43 | |
| Communications | 3.51median 3.58 | 3.58 | |
| Diligence | 3.58median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Demeanor | 3.55median 3.51 | 3.51 | |
| Fairness | 3.30median 3.59 | 3.59 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) agrees that Judge Jay Sutherland Grant MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Grant was appointed to the Denver District Court in April 2016. Prior to his appointment, Judge Grant worked as a lead attorney at the Denver Trial Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, where he worked for over 17 years. Judge Grant received his B.A. and M.A. from New Mexico State University, and his J.D. from The Oklahoma City University School of Law.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Grant, reviewed opinions he authored, and selected members of the Commission observed Judge Grant in court. The Commission also reviewed survey responses from attorneys, appellate judges and non-attorneys who were familiar with Judge Grant’s work. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to the previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Grant meets judicial performance standards?” Of the 22 attorneys responding to the survey, 95% answered yes, meets performance standards, and 5% expressed no opinion whether Judge Grant meets or does not meet performance standards. Of the 10 non-attorneys responding to the survey, 82% answered yes, meets performance standards and 18% answered no, does not meet performance standards. Five of the appellate judges surveyed who were familiar with Judge Grant gave him a higher rating than the average rating of all district judges standing for retention.
Judge Grant is relatively new to the bench and presided over civil matters during this term. The results of the surveys provided by attorneys rated Judge Grant as exceeding the average of other judges standing for retention in almost all areas. The areas considered include case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, demeanor and diligence. The few non-attorneys responding to the surveys were more critical of Judge Grant’s overall performance and the survey results reflect a slightly lower rating in demeanor, fairness, communications and application of the law. However, Judge Grant’s ratings with non-attorneys were slightly higher than other judges standing for retention in the category of diligence. Judge Grant is often described as respectful and thoughtful, with a good judicial temperament and fair-minded. Commission members observed these traits during their observation and interview with Judge Grant. Based on the overall evaluation, the Commission unanimously concluded that Judge Grant meets judicial performance standards.