Final Recommendation

The Honorable

Linda S. Rogers

Metropolitan Court Judge
Bernalillo County

Year: 2010

Recommendation: Do Not Retain

Election Results: Retained

Evaluation: The groups surveyed for this evaluation gave Judge Linda Rogers somewhat mixed scores. For example, the court staff and jurors scored her positively. However, many attorneys rated her negatively for not always treating all participants equally, for not being courteous to all participants, for not always displaying fairness and impartiality toward each side of the case, and for not always displaying appropriate demeanor on the bench. These specific weaknesses were discussed in her previous evaluation but Judge Rogers continues to struggle in these areas. Attorneys did give her positive ratings for being attentive to the proceedings, maintaining proper control over the proceedings, and ensuring personal staff is professional and knowledgeable. After considering the survey results, the court observations, and her interview, the Commission concluded that Judge Rogers has failed to sufficiently improve her areas of weakness.

Experience & Education: Judge Linda Rogers was appointed to the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court in 2006. Her previous experience began with two years of service as a staff attorney with the Pueblo County Legal Services in Colorado. She was an assistant public defender for nine years and an assistant district attorney for four and one-half years in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Judge Rogers received her undergraduate degree from New Mexico State University in 1982 and her law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1990.

PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT THE JUDGE EXHIBITS POSITIVE QUALITIES IN EACH CATEGORY *

Attorneys (n=193, 75.4% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 67% 17% 17%
Fair and Impartial 43% 26% 31%
Knowledgeable of Law 60% 18% 22%
Communication is Clear 56% 23% 21%
Appropriate Demeanor 36% 21% 44%
Properly Controls Proceedings 79% 15% 5%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=68, 59.1% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 71% 22% 7%
Fair and Impartial N/A N/A N/A
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear N/A N/A N/A
Appropriate Demeanor N/A N/A N/A
Properly Controls Proceedings N/A N/A N/A
Respects Court Employees 79% 14% 8%
Jurors (n=12, 43% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 100% 0% 0%
Fair and Impartial 100% 0% 0%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 98% 2% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 100% 0% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A

* On the tables above, the "Agree" columns are comprised of the strongly agree and agree responses. Similarly, the "Disagree" columns are comprised of the strongly disagree and disagree responses. The combined percentage of "Agree", "Disagree", and "Partly Agree/Partly Disagree" for each category may not equal 100% due to rounding error. "N/A" indicates that the category is "not applicable" because some populations were not asked certain questions.

 

PERCENTAGE THAT RECOMMEND THE JUDGE BE RETAINED OR NOT BE RETAINED IN OFFICE. ‡

‡ On the charts above, the "Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend retain and somewhat recommend retain responses. Similarly, the "Do Not Retain" columns are comprised of the strongly recommend not retain and somewhat recommend not retain responses.

 

Back to top