Hon. Eugenio S. Mathis See Rating Details
District Judge
District Court
San Miguel County
4th Judicial District
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. Eugenio S. Mathis


Comments


Other

Comment #: NM29
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Mathis allowed the DA prosecutor and JPO to state in children's court that they had certain infomation in hand but he did not ask to see it, which after the hearing proved to be a lie. The public defender acted as if she was part of the prosecution team. As a result a scared, confused 15 yr old child who had been in a treatment center for 11 months(about half way completed) was placed in YDDC for 21 months. Which experts in that field say just isn't done. The judge refused a request to reopen the case. The family has proof of these lies in court transcripts(dvd) and paper documention. They will take their information to the local paper if they feel they are being ignored. Elected officials tender underbelly is the voting public. It seems that too many of our public officials(employees) do not use common sense anymore, they do whatever it takes to CYA(cover their butts). You would think that Judge Mathis would want the 15 yr old to get what is needed to become a good addition to our society instead of being thrown into a childrens jail with some older thugs.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: NM3
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge is a small-town high school basketball hero who never got over being full of himself. He is curt with attorneys, can be vindictive and high-handed, and exhibits an air of superiority and arrogance on the bench. Judge Mathis is not unintelligent, but frequently allows his ego to interfere with his exercise of proper judicial discretion. In one publicized case, Judge Mathis ordered high school sophomores accused of fighting with an older, physically more powerful senior jailed for a month, then forced to wear electronic ankle bracelets for three months pending trial, when video tape available to the court from the beginning clearly demonstrated that the "victim" was the aggressor and that one of the three defendants did not participate in the fight at all. At trial, Judge Mathis was forced to dismiss all charges against the one juvenile who did not participate, dismissed major charges against the remaining two, and a jury acquitted on all remaining counts against the remaining two boys. To his credit, Judge Mathis did issue an apology to the defendants in open court upon return of the jury's acquittal.