Home Judicial Performance Evaluations 2012 Full List Judge Shakes

Fourth Judicial District - District Judge

2012 Retention Survey Report
2011 Interim Survey Report
2009 Interim Survey Report
There is a more recent evaluation available for this judge. You can access the evaluation here.

Honorable David L. Shakes

Retention year: 2012
Recommendation: Retain

The Fourth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously, by a vote of 9-0, recommends that Judge David L. Shakes BE RETAINED.  One commissioner was absent.

Judge Shakes has served as a Fourth Judicial District Judge since 2003.  Before his appointment, he was a partner in a private law firm.  Before that, Judge Shakes served as Judge Advocate in the U.S. Army. He remains active as the Trial Judge Commander in the Army Reserves.  Judge Shakes has won awards for his efforts to advance the rule of law in Iraq and has published his work in this area.  Judge Shakes also engages in a high level of community service. Among other activities, he co-developed the Judicially Speaking program for high school students, serves as a non-voting member of Joint Initiatives, and has been appointed by three governors to the Colorado Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission. Judge Shakes graduated from Lehigh University a B.A. with highest honors in 1975 and from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1978.  He received the Master of Strategic Studies degree from the U.S. Army War College in 2003.

In narrative comments on the survey, attorneys and non-attorneys describe Judge Shakes as fair, respectful, thoughtful, prepared, well versed in the law and its application, even-handed, and “loving justice.”  Judge Shakes is also committed to the judicial system and its continual improvement; he is a strategic thinker who works to advance practices rooted in scholarship, such as motivational interviewing and evidence-based sentencing. In the courtroom, Judge Shakes is thorough and courteous; he takes time to ensure that instructions, decisions, and the consequences of those decisions are clearly understood.  His rulings are clearly reasoned and written, with appropriate citations of precedent and governing law.  Prior to his interview with the Commission, Judge Shakes had read survey materials, identified ratings of bias toward the prosecution as an area of concern, analyzed his own courtroom practices, and identified ways to address this concern. 

Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 86% recommended to retain, 11% not to retain, and 2% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation.  Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 89% recommended to retain and 11% not to retain.   Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 92% recommended to retain, 3% not to retain, and 5% were undecided or didn’t have enough information to make a recommendation. Of those expressing an opinion to retain or not to retain, 97% recommended to retain and 3% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)