Daniel Walzl at a glance
- Current role
- Judge
- Jurisdiction
- Colorado · State
- Judicial service
- Active
Daniel Walzl
Judge · Colorado County Court, Alamosa County
Official statewide and applicable court procedural guidance applies to this judge.
Available research
Applicable Court Rules & Procedures2 sourced items · labeled by scope
SourcesOfficial and public records supporting this profile
Judicial Performance Evaluation
Meets Performance Standards
Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation / applicable Commission on Judicial Performance · 2026 · Colorado County Court, Alamosa County · County Court Judge
6 For / primary
0 Against / secondary
Published measures
Case Management: Responses Promptly issues a decision on the case after
Overall: 3.7 / 4 (N=12)Attorneys: 3.7 / 4 (N=12)Non-Attorneys: 3.7 / 4 (N=12)
Case Management: trial. Maintains appropriate control over proceedings.
Overall: 3.4 / 4 (N=19)Attorneys: 2.3 / 4 (N=19)Non-Attorneys: 3.6 / 4 (N=19)
Case Management: Promptly rules on pre-trial motions.
Overall: 3.6 / 4 (N=16)Attorneys: 3.7 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)
Case Management: Sets reasonable schedules for cases.
Overall: 3.6 / 4 (N=16)Attorneys: 4 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)
Case Management: Provides an alternative to in-person hearings
Overall: 3.2 / 4 (N=14)Attorneys: 2.7 / 4 (N=14)Non-Attorneys: 3.4 / 4 (N=14)
Application and Knowledge of Law: Responses Is able to identify and analyze relevant facts.
Overall: 3.4 / 4 (N=19)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=19)Non-Attorneys: 3.4 / 4 (N=19)
Application and Knowledge of Law: Bases decisions on evidence and arguments.
Overall: 2 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 2 / 4 (N=3)
Application and Knowledge of Law: Issues consistent decisions when the
Overall: 2.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 2.3 / 4 (N=3)
Application and Knowledge of Law: circumstances are similar. Rulings cite the applicable substantive law.
Overall: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)
Application and Knowledge of Law: Consistently applies laws and rules.
Overall: 2.7 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 2.7 / 4 (N=3)
Application and Knowledge of Law: Gives reasons for rulings.
Overall: 3.8 / 4 (N=16)Attorneys: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.8 / 4 (N=16)
Application and Knowledge of Law: Willing to make decisions without regard to
Overall: 3.5 / 4 (N=13)Non-Attorneys: 3.5 / 4 (N=13)
Communications: Responses Makes sure all participants understand the
Overall: 3.6 / 4 (N=19)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=19)Non-Attorneys: 3.6 / 4 (N=19)
Communications: proceedings. When issuing a ruling, the judge provides an
Overall: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)
Communications: explanation for the decision. Provides written communications that are clear,
Overall: 2 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 2 / 4 (N=3)
Communications: thorough, and well- reasoned. Listens carefully during court proceedings.
Overall: 1.7 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 1.7 / 4 (N=3)
Communications: Uses language that everyone can understand.
Overall: 3.7 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.7 / 4 (N=16)
Communications: Speaks clearly so everyone in the courtroom
Overall: 3.8 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.8 / 4 (N=16)
Communications: can understand what's being said. Gives reasons for a ruling when needed.
Overall: 3.7 / 4 (N=14)Non-Attorneys: 3.7 / 4 (N=14)
Demeanor: Responses Gives proceedings a sense of dignity.
Overall: 3.1 / 4 (N=19)Attorneys: 1.3 / 4 (N=19)Non-Attorneys: 3.4 / 4 (N=19)
Demeanor: Treats participants with respect.
Overall: 3.1 / 4 (N=19)Attorneys: 1.3 / 4 (N=19)Non-Attorneys: 3.4 / 4 (N=19)
Demeanor: Reacts to an incident(s) in the courtroom
Overall: 1.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 1.3 / 4 (N=3)
Demeanor: appropriately. Addresses individuals (e.g. attorneys, court staff, litigants, public witnesses) respectfully in
Overall: 1.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 1.3 / 4 (N=3)
Demeanor: the courtroom. Maintains a professional demeanor in the
Overall: 1.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 1.3 / 4 (N=3)
Demeanor: courtroom. Has a sense of compassion and human
Overall: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)
Diligence: Responses Uses good judgment in application of relevant
Overall: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)
Diligence: law and rules. Is willing to handle cases on the docket even when they are complicated and time
Overall: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)
Diligence: consuming. Does the necessary “homework” and is
Overall: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=3)
Diligence: prepared for cases. Begins court on time.
Overall: 3.1 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.1 / 4 (N=16)
Diligence: Maintains appropriate control over proceedings.
Overall: 3.4 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.4 / 4 (N=16)
Diligence: Sets reasonable schedules for cases.
Overall: 3.3 / 4 (N=13)Non-Attorneys: 3.3 / 4 (N=13)
Diligence: Is prepared for cases
Overall: 3.6 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.6 / 4 (N=16)
Diligence: Manages court proceedings so there is little
Overall: 3.2 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.2 / 4 (N=16)
Fairness: Responses Gives participants an opportunity to be heard.
Overall: 3.4 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.4 / 4 (N=16)
Fairness: Treats those involved in the case without bias.
Overall: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)Non-Attorneys: 3.5 / 4 (N=16)
Fairness: Treats people fairly who represent themselves.
Overall: 3.9 / 4 (N=10)Non-Attorneys: 3.9 / 4 (N=10)
Fairness: Gives each side enough time to present their
Overall: 3.7 / 4 (N=15)Non-Attorneys: 3.7 / 4 (N=15)Overall: 2 / 4 (N=2)Attorneys: 2 / 4 (N=2)
Fairness: case. Conducts their courtroom in a neutral manner.
Overall: 1.5 / 4 (N=2)Attorneys: 1.5 / 4 (N=2)
Fairness: Is fair and impartial to both sides.
Overall: 1 / 4 (N=2)Attorneys: 1 / 4 (N=2)
Published standards
Colorado statutory judicial performance standards
The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (6-0), with two commission vacancies and two commissioners absent, finds that Judge Daniel Walzl MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . The performance standards contemplate the judge’s integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Participation
Attorney email invite
3 returned / 135 distributed
Attorney Survey Website
0 returned
Total Attorneys
3 returned
Non-attorney email Invite
4 returned / 175 distributed
Court Staff Email Invite (Self-select)
5 returned / 2,782 distributed
Citizen Feedback
0 returned
Juror Survey
7 returned
Total Non-Attorneys
16 returned
Commission narrative
The Twelfth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously (6-0), with two commission vacancies and two commissioners absent, finds that Judge Daniel Walzl MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . The performance standards contemplate the judge’s integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Walzl presides over a busy courtroom that addresses cases across a range of areas, including civil law, criminal law, misdemeanors, traffic and small claims. Both attorneys and individuals representing themselves appear in front of him. He also had a busy jury trial schedule in 2025, with eighteen jury trials held in his court.
The 2026 Judicial Survey Report for Judge Walzl had an overall rating of 3.4, up from his previous rating of 3.1 in 2025. Judge Walzl’s personal stated value is that he endeavors to reflect the community of Alamosa’s expectations and standards in the courtroom while applying rules and laws fairly. He recognizes that Alamosa County court is a high volume, high conflict courtroom. He has a fair expectation that attorneys act professionally and come prepared for court. Judge Walzl’s 2026 Judicial Survey Report had a mix of individuals responding, with fourteen non-attorneys finding that he met performance standards, two attorneys and one non-attorney finding that he did not meet performance standards, and one non-attorney having no opinion on whether he met performance standards. The Commission reviewed both the survey responses and Judge Walzl’s self-evaluation and decisions, in addition to interviewing Judge Walzl regarding his survey feedback and observing his courtroom. The Commission specifically heard and addressed the ongoing feedback from a small number of attorneys that are critical of his performance, which Judge Walzl responded to with candor and insight. The Commission concluded that such critiques from attorneys were not credible. A breakdown of all of the respondents’ scores of demeanor (3.1), fairness (3.2), ability to communicate (3.5), case management (3.5), and application of the law (3.4) reflected Judge Walzl’s increase in score in several categories from his last retention cycle, including the ability to communicate, case management, and application and knowledge of the law.
Judge Walzl earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder in 1999. After graduating law school, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Thomas M. Jahnke in the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, Alaska. After completing his clerkship, he then returned to Colorado and spent the next eleven years working as a deputy state public defender, first in Pueblo and then in Alamosa, before becoming County Court Judge for Alamosa in 2011.
Evaluation history
2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024 · 2025 · Historical cycles are shown separately until instrument compatibility is established.
Applicable Court Rules & Procedures
Expanded Media Coverage
Statewide
Colorado expanded media coverage requests must comply with Chapter 38, Rule 3 and are submitted to the court before the proceeding; authorization remains subject to court rules, orders, restrictions, and limitations.
you agree with the criteria set forth in Chapter 38, Rule 3, as well as all orders, rules, restrictions, or limitations issued or imposed by the courtRequest for Expanded Media Coverage ↗
Expanded Media Notice
Statewide
Colorado expanded media coverage applications generally must be submitted at least twenty-four hours before the court proceeding, though judges may consider shorter-notice requests in some circumstances.
Expanded Media Coverage applications to be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the court proceeding in question.Request for Expanded Media Coverage ↗
Sources
Colorado Judicial Branch official judicial roster
Identity source · HTML · checked July 26, 2026
View Colorado Judicial Branch official judicial roster ↗Request for Expanded Media Coverage
Statewide source · HTML · checked July 26, 2026
View Request for Expanded Media Coverage ↗