Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2000 Full List Judge Marshall

Eleventh Judicial District - District Judge

There is a more recent evaluation available for this judge. You can access the evaluation here.

Honorable Julie G. Marshall

Retention year: 2000
Recommendation: Retain

The Eleventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance recommends that Judge Julie G. Marshall BE RETAINED.

Judge Marshall was appointed to the District Court bench in 1992. Judge Marshall currently hears civil, criminal (felony and misdemeanor), domestic relations, juvenile and traffic cases.

Questionnaires for evaluation of Judge Marshall were sent to attorneys who have practiced in her court, court/probation employees, litigants and crime victims who have appeared in front of her, jurors who have served as jurors in her court, law enforcement personnel who have appeared in her court and social services personnel. The responses to the questionnaires rated Judge Marshall highly overall. Those persons who responded to the questionnaires made the following recommendations concerning retention of Judge Marshall: Attorneys (26 responses) Retain - 81%, No Opinion - 0%, Do Not Retain - 19%; Court/Probation (22 responses) Retain - 86%, No Opinion - 0%, Do Not Retain - 14%; Litigants (21 responses) Retain - 52%, No Opinion - 5% Do Not Retain - 43%; Jurors (8 responses) Retain - 100%, No Opinion - 0%, Do Not Retain - 0%; Law Enforcement (8 responses) Retain - 86%, No Opinion - 7%, Do Not Retain - 7%; Crime Victims (14 responses) Retain - 29%, No Opinion - 14%, Do Not Retain - 57%; Social Services (1 response) Retain - 100%, No Opinion - 0%, Do Not Retain: 0%.

Based upon information supplied to the commission through the questionnaires and a personal interview with Judge Marshall, the commission feels that Judge Marshall is conscientious, efficient, and knowledgeable in the law. In the surveys, litigants and crime victims indicated a perception of unfairness or partiality on the part of Judge Marshall. However, it was disappointing to both Judge Marshall and the commission that the litigants and crime victims gave no constructive comments which could be used by Judge Marshall or the commission to provide guidance for improvement. Furthermore, all other categories of persons returning the survey rated Judge Marshall favorably in the areas of fairness and impartiality. Any problem with Judge Marshall projecting her voice more clearly in the courtroom seems to have been eliminated by the microphone system in the new courthouse. Out of approximately 900 civil cases filed in Judge Marshall's court from fiscal year 1996 to present, only two were presented at the public hearings. The commission investigated both cases. Judge Marshall's decisions in both cases were affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals which stated that her opinions were supported by the evidence. In one of the cases, Judge Marshall had analyzed the equities in the case in a lengthy written opinion. Judge Marshall has demonstrated a high level of self-awareness about difficulties and challenges in her courtroom and makes efforts to correct problems called to her attention. Judge Marshall is committed to performing at a high level as a judge and the commission believes that she has succeeded in that effort.