Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2018 Full List Judge Eddy

Second Judicial District - Denver County Judge


Reports:
2018 Retention Survey Report
2017 Interim Survey Report

Honorable Andrea Eddy

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) finds that Judge Andrea Eddy MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

Judge Eddy was appointed to the Denver County Court in July 2016. She received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Denver, Strum College of Law and her bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Prior to her appointment, Judge Eddy was a Denver County Court magistrate. Prior to joining the Denver County Court, Judge Eddy served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in the Denver District Attorney’s Office. She is an active volunteer through Volunteers of America. Judge Eddy currently presides over Courtroom 2300, which handles in-custody matters at the Denver County Jail.

The Commission reviewed the results of surveys submitted by attorneys and non-attorneys, including written verbatim comments, interviews of the Chief Judge of the County Court, the Denver District Attorney, and the head of the public defender’s office in Denver County, transcripts of oral rulings by Judge Eddy in two cases and one written ruling. The Commission also considered a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Eddy, conducted a personal interview with her, and some members of the Commission observed Judge Eddy in court. Of the 13 attorneys responding to the survey 92% indicated Judge Eddy met performance standards, 0% indicated she did not meet performance standards and 8% had no opinion. Of the 12 non-attorneys responding to the survey, 82% indicated Judge Eddy met performance standards, 0% indicated she did not meet performance standards and 18% had no opinion.

In the survey results from attorneys, compared to other county judges standing for retention Judge Eddy scored higher than average in all categories: case management, application of and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. In the survey results from non-attorneys, compared to other county judges standing for retention, Judge Eddy also scored higher than average in three areas: demeanor, fairness, application of law. Judge Eddy scored at the average for other county judges standing for retention in communications, and below average in diligence. Comments from attorneys that were critical of Judge Eddy were related to demeanor and application and knowledge of law. The Commission was impressed with Judge Eddy’s efforts to improve the administration of justice in the county court, especially since she is a relatively new judge. Based on the evaluation of all performance standards, the Commission unanimously concluded Judge Eddy meets judicial performance standards.