Hon. Samuel Goodman See Rating Details
Judge
Justice of the Peace Court
Maricopa County
See Comments
San Tan

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

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




What others have said about Hon. Samuel Goodman


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: AZ660
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Completely biased judge with no inclination to review video proof or witness statements. Allowed for out of range statements from deputy that conflicted with known and video evidence. Did not allow explanation of action by a retire Military police office being stalked by a family member of a death row inmate. Failed to even acknowledge that the charges should have been enhanced due to victim was disabled and threats were made in front of a minor, let alone the threats were to a retired corrections officer by a family member of a death row inmate.. Ignored the fact that the defendant had called MCSO TWICE and made threats that were acted on with no action by MCSO after calls were made and deputy swore on stand that he did not take any actions.the most abysmal ruling I have ever witnessed in over 22 years of military and civilian peace officer duties. I look forward to his defending his actions in a judicial review.