"The Robing Room: DC State Judges

Hon. Jennifer Anderson	See Rating Details
Judge Superior
	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 5.2 - 8 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 4 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Jennifer Anderson

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: DC343
Rating:1.3

Comments:
I thought that Judge Jennifer Anderson was the most unfair and unprofessional judge that I have ever been before in my eight-year career. She refused to consider relevant facts and information, and she was extremely rude and arrogant. She should be removed!

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: DC308
Rating:2.0

Comments:
She is a horrible Judge, unfair and has a very nasty temperament in court! Don't disagree with her or your case will be in jeopardy she thinks she can rule based on how she feels about you and how much you have made her mad during your trial. Very unprofessional, with a God-like demeanor.

Other

Comment #: DC307
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge is nasty, condescending, vindictive, and should be investigated for her attitude in court as well as her rulings.

If you disagree with her, she will make you pay in her ruling of your case. That is unethetical and unprofessional. Other people do have opinions and should not be punished for respectfully expressing them!!

Other

Comment #: DC231
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Deandrai James v. United States, District of Columbia Court of Appeals No. CF2-7005-09: "Hence, we reverse Mr. James’s conviction and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to enter his acquittal. . . ." Yet another reversal for a judge who clearly doesn't care how many reversals she accumulates. Her disrespect for the law is manifest in the number of times the Court of Appeals has reversed her decisions. She knows that the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure will do nothing. How lucky for her; how unlucky for a society that wishes to believe in the rule of law.

Litigant

Comment #: DC204
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Sua sponte, Jennifer M. Anderson tried to impose Civil Rule 11 sanctions, with this rebuke from the D.C. Court of Appeals: A trial court “may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described . . . has not violated [Superior Court Civil] Rule 11 (b)” but may not sua sponte impose a monetary sanction without first issuing such a show-cause order. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11 (c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(B). Here, the court issued a single order stating that it was “troubled by defense counsel’s tactics,” which “caused prejudice to the plaintiff,” and awarding Molla his costs for obtaining an expert. This was error, and it was not harmless, see Delacruz v. Harris, 780 A.2d 262, 265 n.5 (D.C. 2001), because counsel for Sanders might otherwise have convinced the court of a valid reason for “tactics” the court said were designed “to drag out this litigation.” However, “an order entitling a party to a Rule 11 award of costs and attorney’s fees in an amount yet to be determined is a non-final order . . . that is not otherwise appealable by statute.” Francis v. Recycling Solutions, 695 A.2d 63, 80 (D.C. 1997) (finding no jurisdiction over award of “reasonable cost for the Defendant to respond to the action filed”). The trial court awarded “the cost of plaintiff’s expert” and, as far as the record indicates, never ascertained the amount of that cost or issued a new order reflecting such an amount. We dismiss on this issue for want of jurisdiction. We remain confident, moreover, that before further pursuing this matter, if it should choose to do so, the trial court will comply with Rule 11.*fn3

Litigant

Comment #: DC203
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Correction: Jennifer M. Anderson posed for bigshotstock.com. There is no correction of her batting average in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, three cases reversed, two affirmed. And there is no reversal of the jury's verdict of her false accusations against District of Columbia police officers. The Commission on Tenure and Disabilities does not take into account a judge's reversals on appeal or in the witness stand, yet it is an obvious place to start in evaluating a judge's competence. Posing for photographs and failing to convince a jury do not instill public confidence in any judges. And we as a socity cannot afford judges who are reversed on appeal more than they are affirmed. The rule of law counts too to us.

Litigant

Comment #: DC199
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Jennifer M. Anderson interpreted Iqbal and Twombly to mean that she can cancel an initial conference with mere hours of notice and dismiss a case without hearing a thing other than her own will to clear her docket, which she plainly cannot handle. Her record in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is a 50 percent batting average. Her record in a jury trial in which she accused District of Columbia detectives of wrongdoing cannot be gainsaid. Jennifer M. Anderson has spent more time posing for a photographer of bigshot.com than she has spent contemplating her responsibilities toward the law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: DC154
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This Judge is an outright liar! She recently was subpoenaed to a criminal retrial of a case she prosecuted when she was with the US Attorney's office for forcing a witness to lie to convict two men in a capital murder case! The retrial resulted in a not guilty due to her testimony! Moreover, she is a horrific judge to appear before as she is nasty, makes split second decisions and has not respect for litigants or their attorneys.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: DC120
Rating:4.3

Comments:
Confuses principles of law, findings of fact and admissible evidence and jumps to draw conclusions in a biased manner. Is unable to stick to the issue presented to the court. Definitely leans toward defendants and demonstrates a conservative bias.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: DC79
Rating:9.8

Comments:
Handles her courtroom well; gives thought to procedural and evidentiary issues and is not afraid to intervene where needed to keep the trial on track. Bright and energetic. Definitely does her homework, so be prepared to answer questions you might not have briefed ahead of time.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: DC49
Rating:5.6

Comments:
Judge Anderson leans towards certain types of defendants and lawyers. She is less concerned about fairness and justice than she is about expedience and efficiency. She displays her biases in front of the jury, particularly her displeasure with a particular lawyer or party.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: DC42
Rating:8.4

Comments:
Very bright. Able to quickly comprehend complex legal and factual issues. Moves civil trials a bit too fast. Watch the hearsay rule, she will quiz you on it.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: DC23
Rating:9.1

Comments:
Good trial temperament if the attorneys involved are prepared. She has a sense of humor and tries very hard to be fair.