"The Robing Room: CT State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.

General Rating Criteria

* Temperament		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness		(1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation		(1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality		(1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge		(1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling		(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)

Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation		(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail		(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage		(1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)

Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation		(1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions		(1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination		(1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Juliett L. Crawford

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CT494
Rating:1.1

Comments:
Dumb as a box of rocks. She has to be a diversity appointment. This is the worst judge I have appeared before in 25 years.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CT412
Rating:3.3

Comments:
Not a good judge. While I understand her background was in criminal cases, you have to learn civil if you are in a civil assignment. She did not have a knowledge about basic civil procedure. The level of her ignorance was really shocking. She just isn't interested in working and learning. A number of us had high hopes for her, but we have been disappointed.

Litigant

Comment #: CT346
Rating:3.0

Comments:
Judge Crawford seemed to be reasonable and responsive during the trial of a good friend. However, she totally failed at sentencing the woman, who had turned herself in immediately after shooting her new boyfriend, who was actively and convincingly threatening to kill her and her two young children. The defendant waited for the police to arrive, then waived her Miranda rights and told police everything during five hours of questioning. This info was used by the prosecution to cast doubt on her self-defense claim.
The jury's last question revealed that they were splitting hairs about the definition of self-defense! And in the end they decided that she was guilty of manslaughter though not guilty of the murder charge. Huh? It's either self-defense or it's not!
Despite all this ambiguity, Judge Crawford sentenced her to 25 years in prison rather than the minimum 5 years! That's outrageous. Especially since men who kill their intimate partners (usually after abusing them!) get an average sentence of 3-6 years. That's a statistic provided by the Clemency Project at University of Michigan! Women get sentenced to an average of 15 years for the same offense, despite the fact that most of them were the VICTIMS of abuse by the man they killed. Looks like Crawford is sexist against her own gender! Do we have a right to protect ourselves and our children or NOT?