2024 retention · Court of Appeals · Statewide
8th of 8 (too few for a percentile)
composite 0100
31 percentile · rank 73 of 107
composite 0100
47 6th most of 8 among peers · 79th percentile statewide
4272
Composite index 8.33 among peers (37.85 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.50 of 4
3.503.80
2.95 of 4
2.953.75
75.00%
75.00%95.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 75.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 100.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | 2.80median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Writing | 3.10median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Jerry N. Jones of the Colorado Court of Appeals MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS by a vote of 10-0 with one recusal. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and public.
Judge Jones has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals for eighteen years. His last retention evaluation was in 2016. The Commission finds that Judge Jones is fair and impartial, is thoroughly prepared for oral arguments, has a keen intellect, and writes clear legal opinions based upon the facts and law. In its evaluation, the Commission uses survey data with feedback from attorneys participating in oral arguments. Judge Jones actively participates in oral arguments. In current and prior surveys related to oral arguments, Judge Jones was both commended and criticized concerning his perceived demeanor during oral argument. Commissioners reviewed a large sample of recorded oral arguments in which Judge Jones was a member of the panel. At times his judicial temperament can appear adversarial and discourteous. We understand and share these concerns. During Judge Jones’ interview with the Commission, he expressed an openness to recommendations on how to improve his personal style. We believe one way in which Judge Jones might address some of the concerns about his temperament during oral arguments would be to briefly explain to counsel how a particular line of questioning will help inform his approach to the case. The Commission applauds Judge Jones’ leadership on several Colorado Supreme Court and bar association committees, and the Commission enjoyed hearing Judge Jones describe how meaningful his co-coaching of a high school mock trial team was for him.
To conduct the evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Jones, reviewed his self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, read a selection of his legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. One survey question asked whether Judge Jones met judicial performance standards. Of the attorneys who responded to that question, 75% answered yes and 25% answered no. Of the judges who responded to that question, 100% answered yes. A total of 20 attorneys and 27 judges responded to the survey.
Judge Jones was appointed to the Court of Appeals on July 5, 2006. Prior to serving on the Court of Appeals he was a partner at the Denver law firm of Moye White LLP practicing in commercial litigation and appeals. During his time at Moye White he also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General in the State Services Section working on higher education issues, and in the Criminal Section handling appeals on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado. He also served as the Chief of the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for two years. He was a member of the Faculty of Federal Advocates and served as Chair of the Judicial Performance Commission for the Second Judicial District. He is a 1986 graduate of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and served on the Executive Board of the University of Denver Law Review.
2016 retention · Court of Appeals · Statewide
45 percentile · rank 6 of 11
composite 0100
37 percentile · rank 67 of 108
composite 0100
123 86th percentile among peers · 95th percentile statewide
107125
Composite index 53.03 among peers (37.35 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.49 of 4 · 31.82 percentile
3.433.77
3.38 of 4 · 86.36 percentile
2.943.45
74.00% 40.91 percentile
64.00%87.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.30
- Say “meets standards”
- 74.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.60
- Say “meets standards”
- 97.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Writing | 3.38median 3.16 | 3.16 |
Commission: meets standards Split vote 7–2
The State Commission on Judicial Performance recommends by a vote of 7 to 2, with one recusal, that Judge Jerry N. Jones BE RETAINED.
Judge Jones was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2006. He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska and received his undergraduate degree at Arizona State University. He graduated from the University of Denver College of Law and clerked for Justice Lohr of the Colorado Supreme Court. He was a partner with the Denver law firm of Moye Giles LLP. During a portion of that time, he also served as a Special Assistant Attorney General, handling criminal and higher education matters. Immediately prior to his appointment to the Court, Judge Jones served as Chief of the United States Attorney's Appellate Division. He was a member of the Second Judicial District Performance Commission, serving for five years as Chair. He has been a member of the Colorado Bar Association’s Amicus Committee and the Faculty of Federal Advocates. Currently he serves on the Colorado Supreme Court’s Civil Rules, Judicial Education, and Judicial Conference Planning committees; he chairs the Public Access Committee.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Jones, read opinions that he authored, observed him in court, reviewed his self-evaluation, and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges regarding his performance. Included in the survey were responses to the question “How strongly do you recommend that Judge Jones be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey 74% recommended to retain, 15% to not retain and 11% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of judges completing the survey 97% recommended to retain and 3% to not retain.
Attorney survey responses indicated that Judge Jones’ performance was strong in the areas of being prepared for oral argument and also in the clarity of his written opinions. Both attorneys and judges suggested strength in the areas of quality and timeliness of his written opinions. Based upon its review of Judge Jones’ written opinions, the Commission found them to be generally well written, but the quality of his writing was inconsistent. Attorneys noted relative weakness in the areas of fairness and impartiality. Attorneys also noted weakness in the areas of being courteous toward attorneys and allowing parties to present their arguments and answer questions. The Commission concluded, based upon courtroom observation, that he was courteous to some attorneys, and not courteous to others, making his demeanor inconsistent. The Commission raised these areas of concern with Judge Jones during his interview. He was initially dismissive, but the issues were thoroughly discussed at a follow-up interview at Judge Jones’ request. The Commission recommends that Judge Jones undertake additional training to be more effective both as a listener and a questioner during oral arguments. The Commission also urges Judge Jones to continue his efforts to address these concerns.