Author Archives: Alan F. Pendleton, "Of Counsel" Martine Law Firm, Director of Mentorship & Education, Former District Court Judge

FELONY SENTENCING & PROBATION VIOLATION HEARINGS: The one thing a judge should never say or promise (15-15)

Posted on August 12, 2015 | Leave a comment

judge-pointing-finger-300x286GENERAL RULE:  During a felony sentencing or probation violation hearing (PVH), although judges may warn defendants that a violation of probation can have serious ramifications, the court should NEVER PROMISE, MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR OTHERWISE IMPLY that the court will send the defendant to prison if he/she violates conditions of their probation, or that the court has otherwise prejudged the proceedings.

Warning: If such a statement is made and a reasonable examiner [i.e. an objective, unbiased, layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances] would question whether the judge could impartially conduct the proceedings, then at the request of the defendant, the judge would likely be disqualified from the probation violation hearing. State v. Finch, 865 N.W.2d 696 (Minn.2015).

TO READ THE FULL TRAINING UPDATE CLICK ON FOLLOWING LINK:

PendletonUpdate 15-15

Leave a comment

Posted in Never Promise Prison, Never Promise Prison, PROBATION, SENTENCING

Tagged , ,

JUDICIAL & LEGAL WRITING: The Number One Rule for Improving = CUTTING (15-14) (Replaced by 20-02)

Posted on July 23, 2015 | Leave a comment

Thomas Jefferson VerbosityThere is a myriad of publications and articles dedicated to the improvement of legal writing. Unfortunately, in many of these materials, you need an English degree to understand anything past the first paragraph. There is, however, a simple way to dramatically improve any style of legal writing that has nothing to do with dangling participles or misuse of pronouns, etc.  

“Cutting” down your writing is the key to making it better. Cutting does not require any particular knowledge of grammar or writing style.  This training update covers three basic steps that every judge and attorney should learn to follow.

TO READ THE FULL TRAINING UPDATE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK:

PendletonUpdate15-14 (replaced by 20-02)

Leave a comment

Posted in Judicial & Legal Writing: The #1 Rule for Improving, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, RESOURCES & SAFETY

Tagged , ,

IMMIGRANT CRIME VICTIMS & U-VISA CERTIFICATION: What it is and Why Should Judges Care? Ten facts that every judge (and attorney/officer) should know (15-13)

Posted on July 10, 2015 | 2 comments

u-visa

U-VISA CERTIFICATION: In every judge’s career there will likely come a time when they are asked to sign a U-visa certificate on behalf of a noncitizen crime victim. The decision whether or not to sign the U-visa certificate is completely subject to the judge’s discretion. However, in order to intelligently exercise that discretion the reviewing judge, at a minimum, should be familiar with 10 basic facts regarding this Federal program. In addition to judges, Congress also included law enforcement officers and prosecutors on the list of persons authorized to sign U-visa certificates.

Both of the enclosed training updates (a Minnesota version and a National version) have been fully vetted by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and the National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project (NIWAP). The National version will be posted and stored on the NIWAP’s online U-visa resource library.

TO READ THE FULL TRAINING UPDATE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK(S):

PendletonUpdate15-13 MINNESOTA

PendletonUpdate15-13 NATIONAL

2 Comments

Posted in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, Immigrant Crime Victims & U-Visa Certification

Tagged , , , ,

JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING: Dangers of “Implicit Bias” & “Decision Fatigue” (15-12) (Revised by 20-03)

Posted on June 25, 2015 | 1 comment

decision.fatigueTHE PROBLEM:  In a perfect world judges make decisions by applying legal analysis to the facts of a case in a rational, fair and deliberate manner. But in the real world, we know that judges, despite their best efforts, are often subject to the same foibles, biases and imperfections that affect everything humans do. We would love to believe that a judge’s rulings are solely based on rational decisions and written laws. In reality, they can be influenced by a variety of non-relevant factors that may be so subtle that they go mostly unnoticed by attorneys, the parties and most importantly, judges themselves. In order to keep this update short and concise, these non-relevant factors are broken down into two main categories:
1) IMPLICIT BIAS; and 2) DECISION FATIGUE.

TO READ THE FULL TRAINING UPDATE CLICK ON LINK BELOW:

PendletonUpdate15-12

1 Comment

Posted in Judicial Decision-Making: "Implicit Bias" & "Decision Fatigue"

Tagged , , ,

USING TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO RECORDINGS DURING TRIAL – The “Olkon” Cautionary Jury Instruction & Protecting Your Court Reporter (15-11)

Posted on June 15, 2015 | Leave a comment

courtroom_tech

GENERAL RULE:  Transcripts of audio recordings to be played during trial may be provided to the jury to help the jury or judge understand what is being said in the recording. The following are 7 topics of interest that include information about using audio recordings and transcripts at trial that judges and attorneys need to know:

1.  Audio recordings must be admitted into evidence;

2.  The need to provide transcripts to the jury during audio playback is generally caused by two circumstances;

3.  Procedure for use of a transcript during the audio playback;

4.  Who has responsibility for producing the transcript;

5.  Protecting your court reporter – or they may suffer the consequences;

6.  “Olkon” cautionary instruction on use of transcript of audio recording;

7.   Replaying audio recording during deliberations.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL TRAINING UPDATE:

PendletonUpdate15-11

Leave a comment

Posted in Audio Recordings & Transcripts at Trial, TRIAL ISSUES

Tagged , , ,