"The Robing Room: WY 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. F. Scott Peasley

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: WY10
Rating:4.0

Comments:
In making a judgment in my case, Judge Peasley made sloppy use of the facts, completely misquoting testimony and materially changing their meaning on multiple occasions to reach his flawed decision. It was as though he made a snap decision, then failed to check the transcripts to make sure that the testimony he quoted in his decision was accurately remembered. Perhaps the judge became less attentive by the time my 1:45pm testimony could finally be heard. Irrefutable 3rd party exhibits were submitted which completely contradicted his memory, memories which he used to reach his decision. Is it an abuse of discretion to fail to use proper diligence in ascertaining that the submitted facts of the case match the facts that form his conclusions and rule people's lives? Our property was "equitably" divided in a ratio of 9 to 1! I don't think there was malice. His decisions may have even be somewhat reasonable, had the facts not been materially altered. His finding of facts was unfathomable unless the court reporter did not accurately record testimony.