Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2018 Full List Judge Grant

Second Judicial District - District Judge


Reports:
2018 Retention Survey Report

Honorable Jay Sutherland Grant

Retention year: 2018
Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard

Areas of Evaluation 0 1 2 3 4
Case Management
Application & Knowledge of Law
Communications
Diligence
Demeanor
Fairness
Attorneys
Non Attorneys

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.