2022 retention · District Court · 6th Judicial District
50 percentile · rank 34 of 67
composite 0100
42 percentile · rank 78 of 134
composite 0100
39 31st percentile among peers · 36th percentile statewide
15132
Composite index 49.25 among peers (42.29 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.50 of 4 · 64.18 percentile
2.603.80
3.48 of 4 · 60.45 percentile
2.583.82
77.00% 23.13 percentile
43.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 77.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 100.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.60median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.50median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.50median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 3.50median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.40median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 3.40median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Sixth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (9-0) found that Judge Jeffrey R. Wilson MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. 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.
The Commission noted that Judge Wilson was appointed Chief Judge of Colorado’s Sixth Judicial District in early 2017. He appears to have handled the additional administrative burden well, especially considering the COVID pandemic’s impact on the judicial system and the difficulties in securing a new courthouse in Archuleta County. Judge Wilson actually assigned to himself the most complicated and high-profile case in the District — one with national media attention. The Commission agreed that Judge Wilson comes across as a Judge who is sincerely interested in making both his courtroom and the District better. Judge Wilson continues to improve in his time on the bench, which is reflected in his ever-increasing scores. Judge Wilson performed comparably to other district judges in the Judicial Performance Survey. Indeed, his overall average score of 3.5 is above the average of 3.4 for all district judges. Judge Wilson’s results for the six categories that make up the performance standards are similarly in line with the results for other district judges.
The commission reviewed comments from the public and analyzed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had appeared in his court. The Commission members observed him in court, reviewed decisions he authored, reviewed his self-evaluation, met with representatives from the Public Defender’s and District Attorney’s Offices, and conducted a personal interview with Judge Wilson. Among the survey questions was whether Judge Wilson meets the performance standards. Of attorneys completing the survey, 77% agreed that Judge Wilson meets the performance standards, while 18% disagreed. For non-attorneys, 100% of those surveyed agreed that Judge Wilson meets the performance standards. The same survey sought to capture the opinions of appellate judges who have worked with Judge Wilson. Six such appellate judges responded, awarding Judge Wilson 3.8 points out of a possible 4. The average District Judge received 3.7 points from the appellate judges.
Judge Wilson was appointed to the District Court for the Sixth Judicial District in 2002. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1977 and a Juris Doctorate Degree in 1980, both from the University of Iowa. He was in private practice for one year. He was a prosecutor in the District Attorney’s Office in Colorado’s Fourth Judicial District from 1981 – 1983, in the Sixth Judicial District from 1984 to 1989, and in the Twenty-Second Judicial District from 1989 to 1990. In 1990, Judge Wilson returned to private practice. His practice focused on personal injury, criminal defense, dependency and neglect, and family law. Judge Wilson was also the Southern Ute Tribe Prosecutor from 1996-1998 and a Southern Ute Tribal Judge pro tem in 2001.
2016 retention · District Court · 6th Judicial District
58 percentile · rank 26 of 61
composite 0100
59 percentile · rank 44 of 108
composite 0100
57 37th percentile among peers · 33rd percentile statewide
17164
Composite index 55.46 among peers (58.02 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.53 of 4 · 51.64 percentile
2.793.84
3.51 of 4 · 58.20 percentile
2.813.84
86.00% 56.56 percentile
40.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.30
- Say “meets standards”
- 86.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.70
- Say “meets standards”
- 85.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.33median 3.38 | 3.38 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.44median 3.41 | 3.41 | |
| Communications | 3.58median 3.53 | 3.53 | |
| Diligence | 3.55median 3.48 | 3.48 | |
| Demeanor | 3.42median 3.47 | 3.47 | |
| Fairness | 3.72median 3.68 | 3.68 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The Sixth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (10-0) recommends that Judge Jeffrey Raymond Wilson BE RETAINED.
Judge Wilson was appointed to the District Court for the Sixth Judicial District in 2002. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1977 and a Juris Doctorate Degree in 1980, both from the University of Iowa. He was in private practice for one year. He was a prosecutor in the District Attorney’s Office in Colorado’s Fourth Judicial District from 1981 – 1983, in the Sixth Judicial District from 1984 to 1989, and in the Twenty-Second Judicial District from 1989 to 1990. In 1990, Judge Wilson returned to private practice. His practice focused on personal injury, criminal defense, dependency and neglect, and family law. Judge Wilson was also the Southern Ute Tribe Prosecutor from 1996-1998 and a Southern Ute Tribal Judge pro tem in 2001.
The commission reviewed comments from the public and analyzed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who had appeared in his court. The Commission members observed him in court, reviewed decisions he authored, reviewed his self-evaluation, met with representatives from the Public Defender’s and District Attorney’s Offices, and conducted a personal interview with Judge Wilson. Among the survey questions was “how strongly do you recommend that Judge Wilson be retailed in office, or not be retained in office?” Of attorneys completing the survey, 86% recommended Judge Wilson be retained, and 15% recommended that he not be retained. (The percentages do not equal 100% due to rounding). Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 85% recommended Judge Wilson be retained in office, 9% recommended that he not be retained, and 6% made no recommendation regarding retention.
Judge Wilson presides over criminal, domestic, juvenile, dependency and neglect, and civil matters in his court. Judge Wilson received an overall combined average rating in the survey results from attorneys which was equal to all District Judges standing for retention this election and from non-attorneys, above the average combined rating of all District Judges standing for retention this election. These ratings reflect comments received and the conclusions by the Commissioners that Judge Wilson has taken positive steps toward improvement in performance in areas needing his attention as addressed in previous evaluations, especially with regard to several aspects of appropriate judicial temperament and communications skills with participants in the Judicial system. Judge Wilson is aware of the continuing need to be sensitive to these areas of judicial performance. In the recent evaluations, and in the Commission’s assessment, Judge Wilson is correctly described as dedicated, hard-working and efficient, and a well-prepared and fair trial Judge.