Supporters of an Adams County judge staged an unusual intervention this summer, questioning whether bias and an unfair process influenced her unfavorable retention recommendation to voters. 

Tomee Crespin, a district judge in the 17th Judicial District of Adams and Broomfield counties and first appointed to the bench in 2016, was one of only two judges in Colorado this year to receive a recommendation of “does not meet performance standards” from the system of citizen-led commissions that review judges’ performances. That recommendation was finalized in August for the ballot information booklet, or Blue Book. Crespin’s supporters said her experience points to signs of bias and sexism. 

“The initial performance report issued by the committee seems to reflect the political dysfunction and drama that has recently plagued the district,” wrote Northglenn attorney David R. Juarez, in a letter to the commission that was included in a submission with 22 other supportive statements. 

In an explanation of its decision, her district’s commission deemed Crespin “demeaning and disrespectful” and said she had not made “significant effort and improvement” in her three years on the bench.

“She took extensive efforts to soften her demeanor,” countered Amanda Maze in an interview. Maze, a court reporter for 20 years, estimated she worked with Crespin on 100 to 200 occasions. “She exhaustively did those things, so she is softer in her delivery and has been for probably a year… . I think she absolutely should be retained.”

Colorado Politics and MetroWest Newspapers obtained several dozen pages of materials submitted to the 17th Judicial District Performance Commission in July after commission members indicated they would likely give an unfavorable recommendation to voters. The letters came from attorneys, fellow judges and others in the legal field who knew Crespin.

“Compared to other judges in our district who have been repeatedly retained, Judge Crespin is not remotely cruel, or spiteful, or petty,” wrote Robert White, a 17th Judicial District deputy district attorney, in the dossier of letters to the commission. “It would be a shame if the committee prioritized personality conflicts instead” of her track record.

In her public response to the commission’s narrative, the judge defended her background, her conduct and her performance in the courtroom.

“I’m a Hispanic woman who grew up poor, graduated from Ranum H.S. and am raising my family in this community. I’ve experienced racist, demeaning, unfair and disrespectful behavior in life, that’s not how I treat people,” she wrote.

The intervention on Crespin’s behalf came after the judge undertook efforts to improve her performance. She worked with a theater coach on her facial expressions and voice. She attended a judging course out of state. She recorded hundreds of hours of herself in the courtroom to review, none of which the commission asked to see, according to a complaint Crespin later filed with the state.

The deliberations of judicial performance commissions are not subject to public review, and Judicial Department employees are under significant restrictions on what they can say. Among those interviewed about Crespin’s retention, more than half a dozen refused to speak on the record, citing concerns about ethics, their jobs or possible retaliation.

However, the picture painted by those familiar with the 17th Judicial District and contemporary documents suggests a political divide between judges, instances of retribution and disparate treatment. 

“I feel strongly this is happening to her for reasons other than her performance,” said one person familiar with the situation, speaking on condition of anonymity. “She was set up to fail.”

The retention system

In each of Colorado’s 22 judicial districts, 10 people serve on a volunteer performance evaluation commission. Four members are attorneys; six are not. A judge who is up for retention will walk through a year-long process with those commissioners. In the end, the commission votes on whether to recommend a judge for retention. 

Of 104 judges on ballot, 2 receive recommendations against retention

In a departure from previous election cycles, commissions this year issued narratives advising whether a judge does or does not “meet performance standards” after the General Assembly tweaked the process in 2017 to make the recommendations less prescriptive.

Colorado’s governor appoints most judges for a provisional, two-year term, after which the voters decide whether to retain them — in contrast to other states that elect or appoint judges by other means. A judge receives an interim evaluation before the retention election, followed by an election-year retention report. To assist voters, the performance commission’s reasoning, a 500-word narrative, goes into the Blue Book. 

As part of the evaluations, people who interact with the judges fill out surveys with comments, numerical scores and evaluations of the judge on six indicators that include integrity, knowledge of the law and temperament. There were 90 responses from attorneys and non-attorneys to a survey for Crespin’s interim evaluation. The anonymous survey responses are one of several items — such as interviewing the judge and reviewing a judge’s record — that the commission considers to make a decision. 

Crespin’s overall interim survey score was 3.2, a “B” grade, which was only slightly below the average for all district judges in Colorado. Still, at that point in mid-2019, the commission thought Crespin should start a performance improvement plan.

According to an audio recording of an October 2019 meeting between Crespin and the performance commission that Colorado Politics and MetroWest obtained, the judge heard that commissioners were still receiving complaints about her gruff demeanor, and wanted to help her be “not as abrasive on the bench.”

“Demeanor is your biggest challenge,” said Molly Jansen, the commission’s chairperson. “We need you to get outside of the people who will be like, ‘That is fine. That was totally cool.’ If that person weren’t close to you or weren’t a really solid colleague, that person might not say that.”

“I have heard people complaining about her demeanor and I have heard people talking about her lack of appropriate demeanor,” acknowledged Christopher R. Decker, former president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, who has known Crespin for almost 20 years. “But I have not personally encountered that or witnessed that.”

Crespin’s road was rocky from the start, which she attributed in part to Jansen. The first red flag arose when the commission met with her for an interim evaluation in June 2019.

Crespin fielded comments from Jansen about a court case in which Jansen, who was representing a client, appeared before Crespin.

Crespin noted these interactions in an Aug. 17, 2020, complaint she filed with the state performance evaluation commission (separate from the 17th Judicial District commission) at the conclusion of the process. Colorado Politics and MetroWest obtained the complaint and a response from the state commission through an open records request. 

In the audio recording of the October 2019 meeting, Jansen told Crespin that the way the judge handled her 2018 case created issues between Jansen and her client. Specifically, Crespin compared Jansen’s client to a 3-year-old at sentencing. 

The fact that Jansen brought up that 2018 case demonstrated “personal connection and bias [that] should have been cause for her recusal as a commission member,” Crespin said in her complaint.

In between her 2019 interim and 2020 retention evaluations, Crespin voluntarily attended a class at the National Judicial College titled “Enhancing Judicial Bench Skills” to help fulfill her performance plan. The course teaches judges courtroom management and communication skills. 

In addition, Crespin received instruction on facial gestures and tone of voice and developed a mentor relationship with Chief Judge Michael A. Martinez in Denver, among others. Crespin took “substantial and multi-faceted efforts to address criticism she received,” Decker said.

In an emailed statement about her retention, Crespin said that “While it was never clearly articulated to me what the District Commission considered ‘demeanor,’ in September 2019 they identified my demeanor on the bench as very intimidating and unapproachable and that bringing my personal history and background to the bench gives the appearance of being harsh and unfair to the parties.” 

In June 2020, Crespin underwent her retention evaluation. For those surveys, her marks were lower than the interim. Out of 27 responses, Crespin’s overall score was 2.2, a “C” grade. Ultimately, the commission’s retention narrative found she did not meet performance standards.

Download PDF

“The expectation was that she would show significant effort and improvement in the areas raised in that plan; a review by the Commission indicates that has not occurred,” the performance commission wrote in its narrative to voters.

This conclusion ran counter to that of Kent J. Wagner, the executive director of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (OJPE), who monitored Crespin’s adherence to her performance improvement plan.

In a June 10 letter to the commission, he wrote that based on communications with the judge, “I find Judge Crespin has engaged in and completed the requirements of the approved performance improvement plan.”

After the commission voted, Crespin requested a second interview. OJPE has not publicly disclosed the commission’s first vote count and narrative about Crespin.

Intervention from supporters

After the commission indicated it found Crespin’s performance unsatisfactory, Judge Sharon Holbrook, an ally of Crespin’s on the 17th Judicial District bench and a 2016 appointee of former Gov. John Hickenlooper, solicited statements of support from people who knew and worked with Crespin.

“I did not include Judge Crespin in this process because I did not want to put undue pressure on her, or on any of the respondents,” Holbrook wrote in her cover letter to the commission, which Colorado Politics and MetroWest obtained. Holbrook, in response to an email request for comment, said that the issue “requires confidentiality on my part” and declined to speak.

In her letter, Holbrook outlined to the commission how she “vehemently” disagreed with their analysis of Crespin, and pointed to a discrepancy from the 2018 retention cycle. Cindy Dang, a county court judge in the 17th Judicial District, received survey scores based on 127 responses that were numerically much lower than Crespin’s. 

Yet by a vote of 7-3, the judicial performance commission recommended to retain Dang, writing that many commission members believed she “is committed to, and capable of improving her judicial performance….Given her limited time as a county judge, it is the belief of this Commission that she will improve if given time to enact her action plan.”

Similarly, Holbrook said in her letter, “Judge Crespin, with higher scores, deserves the same treatment.”

Holbrook also took aim at the commission’s critique of Crespin’s demeanor, strongly implying that sexism was at play. She compiled a list of male judges in the district who received favorable recommendations in the past despite having Blue Book narratives that referenced their “noticeably lower” demeanor scores or called one judge “frequently rude, impolite, angry, strident and abrupt.”

Chris Melonakis, a retired judge in the 17th Judicial District who served on Adams County’s very first judicial performance commission, said he had never seen an intervention like Holbrook’s and would, in fact, view it skeptically.

“The biggest thing I would look at would be the survey results,” he said, calling them “the most objective source” of data.

Still, Melonakis believed that judges deserve time to grow into the job, a sentiment that former Chief Judge Stephen M. Munsinger echoed.

For the first retention period, commissions are generally “much more lenient, thinking the judge will improve or work into a better feel for the job,” said Munsinger, retired from the bench of the First Judicial District in Jefferson and Gilpin counties. 

Crespin grew up in Adams County and, according to accounts from several people, took her performance plan seriously and willingly sought help from others. The letters included in Holbrook’s submission spoke to all of the issues — demeanor, consistent rulings, her performance — that the commission put in its crosshairs. Three fellow judges, two court reporters and multiple lawyers in private practice vouched for her professionalism. Although several people who knew Crespin admitted she was not overly warm or friendly, some people worried that her background or popularity within the courthouse permeated her evaluation.

People v. Jansen

Crespin and her allies were concerned with another part of the process: Jansen. The commission’s chairperson was, and still is, on legal probation after an October 2019 admission of professional conduct violations. In the People v. Molly F. Jansen, a disciplinary judge affirmed that Jansen violated multiple Colorado Bar Association rules of professional conduct after improperly accounting for client payments and not refunding certain flat fees to clients who separated from her. A synopsis of the case indicated Jansen failed to keep appointments with one incarcerated client and did not respond to letters he sent. Jansen received two years of probation in lieu of suspension of her law license for one year.

To Crespin, someone with that mark on their record should not be evaluating the integrity of judges. “Such unethical behavior and official discipline is ‘cause’ for removal,” the judge said in her complaint. 

Wagner, the judicial performance office director, disagreed. “She’s a licensed attorney who practices in front of the courts of Colorado. She’s qualified to be on the commission,” he said.  

For that reason, Wagner did not notify the state commission, which would have then notified the authority who appointed Jansen to the commission, the office of Colorado’s Senate president. The decision to remove her lies there.  

Just because Jansen is legally eligible to still be a commissioner, Holbrook argued to the commission, does not mean she should serve. “The bench, myself included, was concerned that an attorney who is not in good standing was not in the best position to judge the performance of others, including judges,” she wrote in her letter.

Jansen did not respond to a request for comment.

After Crespin’s second interview with the commission, members voted 5-3 that she did not meet performance standards. Two commissioners did not participate.

After that vote, Crespin filed her complaint with the state commission, outlining the many flaws she identified in the evaluation process. Crespin’s complaint alleged six categories of rule violations, including deviating from the scoring matrix and an insufficient narrative of her legal experience and survey results.

The state commission, which evaluates Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges, held a closed-door session Aug. 28 and ultimately found the 17th Judicial District’s commission violated two rules. First, the district commission failed to provide Crespin with transcripts of interviews about the judge between the district commission and the district attorney’s office and public defender’s office when it should have. Second, the district commission did not provide Crespin with notice of its round one retention evaluation decision in a timely fashion.   

However, the state commission did not find either failing was sufficient to order the 17th Judicial District commission to rewrite its narrative.

“I’ve ethically and honestly served this community for 20 years,” Crespin explained in her Blue Book response to the recommendation. “I completed a performance plan to improve and conform to a traditional view of a judge. I’m not a traditional judge. I’m a direct, no-nonsense judge dedicated to equal treatment of all, based on fair application of the law.”

Alleged retaliation

Several people felt that Crespin’s difficulty with the performance commission was connected to another event that occurred around the same time: a new chief judge took the reins in the 17th Judicial District.

In April 2019, Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats appointed Emily E. Anderson to the seat.  She received a unanimous vote for retention as a district judge three years earlier. Anderson was a magistrate in the district since 2005, and a 2013 Hickenlooper appointee. She held leadership roles in the Colorado Women’s Bar Association and LGBT Bar Association, and was a recipient of the Colorado Judicial Institute’s Judicial Excellence Award.

Coats elevated Anderson over the other candidate seeking the post, Judge Katherine R. Delgado, the longest-serving district judge. There was no formal campaign to be chief judge, but individuals could submit statements of support for each of the contenders.

In her statement to Colorado Politics and MetroWest, Crespin said she believed she and fellow judges experienced retaliation stemming from the selection, something which other individuals also confirmed. Three judges were known to back Delgado: Crespin, Holbrook and Robert W. Kiesnowski Jr. Several individuals described those judges’ belief that Anderson took action against them, ranging from ignoring them, to courthouse transfers to derogatory comments.

“Retaliation is totally irreconcilable with the Emily Anderson I knew,” said one individual who knew Anderson professionally and supported her elevation to chief judge.

An audio recording between Crespin and the Office of the State Court Administrator’s legal counsel revealed that Crespin reported Anderson alluding to her ethnicity in their interactions, calling her a “petite Latina” during a business meeting and a “tamale” over text message, which offended the judge. 

“Those texts included the phrase ‘see you tamale’ – a jocular play on words for ‘see you tomorrow’ or ‘see you later,’” responded Anderson in an email. “I never intended the word ‘tamale’ to be a racially charged or insensitive term.”

Based on her interactions with Anderson, Crespin had concerns about the chief judge monitoring her performance plan. Crespin brought her issues to the office in late 2019, where Coats eventually responded to the concerns. The chief justice endorsed two possible options: bar Anderson from commenting to the commission on Crespin’s performance plan, or allow the chief judge of another judicial district to discuss Crespin’s progress with members.

People familiar with the retention process called such a maneuver unusual and had never seen it personally.

“I cannot imagine that happening,” said Munsinger, the former chief judge. He said he routinely communicated with the commission about the judges in his district.

Crespin’s submission to the state performance commission alleging rule violations in her retention process indicated that while she communicated with Wagner about her plan, she was never granted her request to have another district’s chief judge monitor her.

“The commission repeatedly asked me about Chief Judge Anderson, and it was clear that they had not been informed of the reported complaint or how such complaint impacted my ability to work with her,” Crespin wrote. “Such irregular process without full disclosure was no doubt detrimental to me in this process.” 

‘As fairly and equitably as they can’

Colorado law requires the confidentiality of judicial performance evaluations, so it is difficult to pinpoint the reason behind the commission’s recommendation. The final narrative put before voters is the only exception to confidentiality. In addition, the rules of judicial conduct generally prohibit “any campaign activity in connection with the judge’s own candidacy.”

Even staunch defenders of the retention system, like Melonakis, the retired 17th Judicial District judge and performance commission member, understand that individual judges’ experiences may vary. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you there isn’t gender bias, because I’m sure there is,” he said. 

Gary Mikes, a current non-attorney member of the 17th Judicial District’s performance commission, saw valid critiques and merits of the system. He did not offer specific comments about Crespin’s retention. Most members of the commission declined to talk whatsoever. However, Mikes acknowledged there are challenges with evaluating a judge’s demeanor, a criteria upon which Crespin’s recommendation largely hinges.  

“There are different personalities and different demeanors,” he said. “And it’s all different when viewed through somebody else’s eyes.”

That said, Mikes thinks this year went well and is happy with the commission’s recommendations. Wagner, the judicial performance office director, said the same and defended the process. “I think the [district] commissions put a lot of work to do what they do and make sure they do it as fairly and equitably as they can under the statute,” he said.

Ultimately, though, the decision lies with the voters.

“People should read it. They should understand the nature of the findings,” Melonakis said of the retention narrative. “The commissions are not there to make a decision as to whether or not somebody is on the bench. They’re there to give information. Period.”

Federal judge greenlights lawsuit against Lakewood officers in police dog attack

State Supreme Court to decide whether judge lowered burden of proof through comments

State Supreme Court to decide whether counties are 'people' under solid waste law