Jonathan Woodman
Palmer Superior Court | Third Judicial District
Judge Woodman was appointed to the Palmer Superior Court in October of 2016. This is his second judicial retention election.
Performance Summary
The Alaska Judicial Council finds that Judge Woodman met or exceeded performance standards and recommends a "YES" vote for his retention in office.
This conclusion is based on surveys and reviews from attorneys, court employees, jurors, and other user groups familiar with the judge’s work, analysis of the judge’s financial disclosure documents, analysis of how often the judge’s decisions were affirmed on appeal, whether their pay was withheld for untimely decisions, how often the judge was disqualified from a case, whether the judge followed standards of ethical conduct and continuing education, input from the public, and the judge’s demonstrated commitment to the administration of justice and the community.
The Council’s evaluation process included an interview with Judge Woodman, and an opportunity for Judge Woodman to comment on his own performance.
“I am satisfied with my efforts to reduce the post-COVID/flooding backlog of criminal cases, as well as the volume of CINA cases resolved.”
- Judge Woodman
Detailed Performance Findings
The Council evaluated Judge Woodman’s performance on legal ability, integrity, impartiality and fairness, judicial temperament, and diligence and administrative skills. Judge Woodman met or exceeded the standard in each of these areas.
A summary of the Council’s findings on Judge Woodman's performance is presented here. Complete reports are posted in the source documents below.
-
▼ Legal Ability
Did the judge demonstrate knowledge of substantive law, evidence and procedure, and clarity and precision in their work?
Attorneys familiar with Judge Woodman’s work rated his legal ability as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings. Attorneys who appeared in cases before him gave positive reviews.
Jurors who served in Judge Woodman’s courtroom rated his attentiveness, intelligence and skill as excellent.
In Alaska, a party who disagrees with a trial judge’s decision can appeal to a higher court. The appeal court analyzes the judge’s decision and issues an opinion. The Council reviews all the opinions and analyzes how often and why individual judges are affirmed or reversed as one measure of the judge’s legal ability. Judge Woodman had 47 cases appealed and decided in the evaluation period, with an affirmance rate of 66% (Acceptable). A review of the opinions raised no concerns about his legal ability. For more details, see the Appellate Affirmance Report, linked below.
Judge Woodman met or exceeded educational requirements set by the Alaska Supreme Court.
-
▼ Impartiality & Fairness
Did the judge demonstrate a sense of fairness and justice and treat all parties equally?
Attorneys, court employees, and social service professionals rated Judge Woodman’s impartiality and fairness as excellent. Peace and probation officers rated his impartiality and fairness as good. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Jurors who served in Judge Woodman’s courtroom rated his impartiality as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Court rules allow a litigant at the beginning of a case to file a request for change of judge. Parties whose cases were assigned to Judge Woodman seldom asked for a different judge. For more detail, see the Disqualification Report linked below.
-
▼ Integrity
Was the judge's conduct free from impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, and did the judge make decisions without regard to possible public criticism?
Attorneys, court employees, social service professionals, and peace and probation officers rated Judge Woodman’s integrity as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Judge Woodman filed financial disclosure statements with the Alaska Public Offices Commission and separate conflict-of-interest forms with the court system as required, and the Council found no items of concern in these disclosures.
The Council confirmed that Judge Woodman was not the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings before the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct, and that he followed standards of ethical conduct for judges.
Judges must disqualify themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest or their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Council found no concern about Judge Woodman’s performance on this requirement. For more detail, see the Disqualification Report linked below.
-
▼ Judicial Temperament
Was the judge courteous and free from arrogance, and did the judge manifest human understanding and compassion?
Attorneys, court employees, social service professionals, and peace and probation officers rated Judge Woodman’s judicial temperament as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Jurors who served in Judge Woodman’s courtroom rated him as excellent on respectful and courteous behavior.
-
▼ Diligence & Administrative Skills
Was the judge prepared for court proceedings, did the judge work diligently, and was the judge reasonably prompt in making decisions?
Attorneys, court employees, and social service professionals rated Judge Woodman’s diligence and administrative skills as excellent. Peace and probation officers rated him as good. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Under Alaska law, a judge cannot receive a paycheck if they have any decision undecided or uncompleted for more than six months. Each pay cycle, judges must sign an affidavit declaring that no matter referred to them has remained undecided or uncompleted for more than six months. Judge Woodman's pay was withheld one time for one pay period in 2020 due to an undecided matter.
Judge Woodman demonstrated commitment to improving the administation of justice and to community outreach. Judge Woodman:
- Serves on the Child in Need of Aid/Juvenile Delinquency Rules committee, a group that drafts, reviews, and recommends improvements in juvenile case procedures to the Alaska Supreme Court;
- Serves on the court system’s Court Improvement Project, a group focused on improving outcomes in child welfare cases;
- Presides over the Families with Infants and Toddlers court, a therapeutic court in the Mat-Su Valley for families with young children who have an open child welfare case;
- Presided over swearing-in ceremonies for Valley area Court-Appointed Special Advocates; and
- Presented at Valley area at CIT trainings.
See Judge Woodman's retention questionnaire for more information.
The Judicial Council distributed electronic surveys to attorneys, court employees, social service professionals, peace and probation officers, and jurors asking them to rate Judge Woodman’s performance on key skills. Survey ratings from these groups are shown in the charts below.
