Final Recommendation

Stan  Whitaker
The Honorable

Stan Whitaker

District Court Judge
2nd Judicial District --
Bernalillo County
Criminal Court

Year: 2020

Recommendation: Retain

Election Results:

Evaluation: Overall, Judge Stan Whitaker’s scores were somewhat mixed. For example, attorneys rated him positively for being attentive to the proceedings, maintaining proper control over proceedings, being punctual in commencing proceedings, and for ensuring his personal staff is professional, productive and knowledgeable of court policies and procedures. However, attorneys rated him somewhat lower in the areas of conducting himself in a manner free from arrogance and displaying fairness and impartiality toward each side of the case. The court staff rated him very highly in all areas. While still reasonably positive, his scores among the resource staff (e.g., law enforcement, probation and parole officers, interpreters, etc.) have declined slightly since his previous evaluation in 2017. Judge Whitaker is aware of the decline with the resource staff and is working to improve these scores.

Experience & Education: Judge Stan Whitaker was appointed to the bench in May 2006 and elected to his judicial position in November 2006. Prior to Judge Whitaker’s appointment, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, an Assistant District Attorney, a Domestic Violence Special Commissioner in the 2nd Judicial District Court, and worked in private practice. Judge Whitaker received his undergraduate degree from the University of Kansas and law degree from the UNM School of Law in 1989.

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

Attorneys (n=102, 41% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 71% 10% 19%
Fair and Impartial 57% 14% 30%
Knowledgeable of Law 58% 19% 23%
Communication is Clear 70% 18% 12%
Appropriate Demeanor 56% 23% 21%
Properly Controls Proceedings 89% 6% 5%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Court Staff (n=103, 41% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 99% 0% 1%
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 100% 0% 0%
Jurors (n=30, 25% 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 100% 0% 0%
Appropriate Demeanor 100% 0% 0%
Properly Controls Proceedings 100% 0% 0%
Respects Court Employees N/A N/A N/A
Resource Staff (n=199, 11% Response Rate)
Category Agree Partly Agree/ Partly Disagree Disagree
Exhibits Integrity 70% 9% 21%
Fair and Impartial 64% 14% 21%
Knowledgeable of Law N/A N/A N/A
Communication is Clear 74% 14% 12%
Appropriate Demeanor 67% 14% 19%
Properly Controls Proceedings 67% 18% 15%
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. ‡

Attorney Retain Recommendation Bar ChartCourt Staff Retain Recommendation Bar ChartResource Staff Retain Recommendation Bar Chart

‡ 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.

 

Privacy Policy

Back to top