"The Robing Room: CT 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. John D. Boland

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CT362
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I speak from massive litigation experience in his courtroom. This judge misapprehends the law, engages in nepotism, and upon the results of my investigation has a long standing bias against self-represented parties in the courtroom. In our case, he gave great deference to an elderly woman with "tenuous" competency. Refused our request for medical evaluations, then after she fiored her attorneys and testified that her attorney told her to lie, (an attorney the judge knew and had private business relationships with AND THEIR WITNESS) he determined to the detriment of our case, that the court lacked Subject matter jurisdiction. Dig a little and you will find his reputation is one where he holds grudges against attorneys too. He is a former town attorney. Any litigant bringing suit against a town is unlikely to prevail under his purview.

Litigant

Comment #: CT259
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Balanced, fair and makes absolutely sure all the facts in and both sides have the opportunity to present their case.