Need help with accessibility? Click the link for more information - Accessibility Page


Groome, Stephen 2016 Evaluation


Eleventh Judicial District - District Court Judge

Honorable Stephen A. Groome 

Retention Year: 2016
Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard


2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF)

2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF) 

2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF)


Need an accessible PDF Document Version?

Please click on the link below and email our staff

Contact Us

The Eleventh Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance, by a vote of 8-1, recommends that Judge Stephen A. Groome BE RETAINED.

Judge Groome was appointed to the District Court in the Eleventh Judicial District in June 2007.  Judge Groome received his undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina in 1973 and his law degree from Southwestern University School of Law in 1976.  He was admitted to the practice of law in California in 1976 and in Colorado in 1987.

In arriving at this recommendation, commission members reviewed surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys, conducted courtroom observations of Judge Groome, reviewed opinions authored by Judge Groome, and conducted a personal interview of him.  Overall, seventy-six percent (76%) of all those completing a survey recommended that Judge Groome be retained.  Of attorneys completing the survey, eighty-three percent (83%) favored retention. Of non-attorneys, including jurors and court staff, completing the survey seventy-three percent (73%) favored retention. Of law enforcement personnel, defendants, litigants and witnesses completing surveys, sixty-nine percent (69%) favored retention.

Judge Groome presides primarily over criminal, juvenile and domestic relations matters.  The remainder of his docket involves civil and probate cases.  Judge Groome’s combined average rating from attorneys and appellate court judges exceeded that of all other judges standing for retention, however Judge Groome’s retention recommendation from non-attorneys was below that of other judges.  He received high marks for his fairness, judicial demeanor and communication skills, however there were individual comments from persons who disagreed with that assessment.  Judge Groome received assessments slightly below other judges standing for retention for his application and knowledge of particular areas of the law.  His reported greatest weakness was inconsistent sentencing under similar circumstances in criminal matters.  However, the Commission viewed that criticism in contrast to the positive majority of comments overall, many describing his judicial fairness and compassion.