Category Archives: 2025 Martine Law Firm

Martine Law Training Updates – 2025 Year-End Recap

SUBJECT: Martine Law Training Updates – Complete Recap (May–December 2025)

Dear Colleagues,

In the fast-paced worlds of criminal and family law, staying current on legal developments, courtroom procedure, and practical advocacy tools is essential. Since May 2025, the Martine Law Firm has issued eleven training updates covering core areas of Criminal Law, Family Law, Evidence, Procedure, Trial Advocacy, and Professional Well-being.

With new attorneys, judges, and legal professionals joining our distribution list each month, this recap is intended to provide a single, consolidated reference to all eleven updates issued between May and December 2025. Each update is also available on the Minnesota Judicial Training and Education Website. The most recent updates appear on the home page, while older updates are organized in a subject-matter index, table of contents, and searchable keyword index.


1. Training Update 25-2 (April 27, 2025)
Title: Hearsay v. Non-Hearsay: The Fool-Proof Hearsay Test
This update introduces a three-step analytical test for determining whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, beginning with the correct threshold question before turning to exceptions. It also explains the six categories of Rule 801(d) non-hearsay statements with practical examples.

Why it matters: Proper hearsay analysis is foundational to trial practice and essential to avoiding evidentiary error.


2. Training Update 25-3 (June 4, 2025)
Title: Crawford v. Washington and the Hearsay Testimonial Rule
A follow-up to Update 25-2, this update explains testimonial hearsay under Crawford, Davis, and Krasky, and provides a four-part flowchart and a primary-purpose checklist.

Why it matters: Recognizing testimonial hearsay violations is critical to protecting Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and preserving issues for appeal.


3. Training Update 25-4 (June 22, 2025)
Title: Marijuana Odor & Warrantless Vehicle Searches
This update analyzes State v. Torgerson (2023) and M.S. 626.223, clarifying that the odor of marijuana alone does not justify a vehicle search. It also provides a practical overview of Minnesota’s marijuana reform laws and open-container statute.

Why it matters: Attorneys must know what conduct is lawful versus criminal to effectively challenge vehicle searches and suppress evidence.


4. Training Update 25-5 (July 7, 2025)
Title: Family Law Motions – Ten Basic Rules
This foundational update outlines 10 essential rules governing family law motion practice, including service deadlines, affidavit limits, requests for oral testimony, and the 2024 expedited parenting-time hearing requirement under M.S. 518.131.

Why it matters: Failure to follow basic motion rules can result in denied hearings, adverse rulings, and avoidable professional setbacks.


5. Training Update 25-6 (July 14, 2025)
Title: Dimler Amendment – Keeping Speeding Tickets Off the Driving Record
This update explains the Dimler Amendment (M.S. 171.12, subd. 6) and provides practical strategies for amending low-level speeding violations so they do not appear on a client’s DPS driving record.

Why it matters: Proper application of Dimler can protect clients from insurance consequences and provide leverage in traffic negotiations.


6. Training Update 25-7 (July 21, 2025)
Title: Alford Pleas – A Three-Step Guide for Making a Valid Record
This update provides a step-by-step guide and in-court script for accepting an Alford plea, ensuring compliance with State v. Theis and related case law.

Why it matters: Alford pleas are closely scrutinized on appeal. A clean record is essential to avoid reversal.


7. Training Update 25-8 (July 28, 2025)
Title: The Power of Gratitude: Transforming the Lives and Practices of Attorneys and Judges
Addressing the mental-health challenges of the legal profession, this update introduces gratitude as a science-based tool for resilience, perspective, and long-term professional sustainability.

Why it matters: Effective advocacy depends on healthy, resilient lawyers and judges.


8. Training Update 25-9 (August 18, 2025)
Title: Prosecutorial Misconduct – The 15 Most Common Categories
This update introduces a comprehensive framework that identifies and explains the 15 most common categories of prosecutorial misconduct, with practical examples and guidance on recognizing misconduct in real time and preserving the record.

Why it matters: Properly identified and preserved misconduct can lead to reversals, new trials, or sentencing relief.


9. Training Update 25-10 (November 24, 2025)
Title: Judicial & Legal Writing – The Number One Rule for Improvement = CUTTING
This update distills effective legal writing down to a single principle: cutting unnecessary words. Using judge-driven examples, it shows how clarity and persuasion improve when verbosity is eliminated.

Why it matters: Judges consistently identify verbosity as a top problem in written submissions.


10. Training Update 25-11 (December 4, 2025)
Title: Warrantless Arrests & Detentions – The 36- and 48-Hour Rules
Designed as a quick reference guide, this update explains when and how the 36- and 48-hour rules apply following warrantless arrests, including time-calculation charts and common pitfalls.

Why it matters: Violations can result in unlawful detention, release, or suppression issues if identified in time.


11. Training Update 25-12 (December 29, 2025)
Title: Norgaard Plea of Guilty – Three Steps to Making a Proper Record
This update provides a complete procedural guide and in-court script for accepting a Norgaard plea when a defendant cannot recall the facts due to intoxication or amnesia.

Why it matters: Improperly accepted Norgaard pleas are vulnerable on appeal.


If you missed any of the above updates, you can also access them at:
📚 Minnesota Judicial Training and Education Website

Want to search for past topics? Use the search bar, the Table of Contents, or the Subject Matter Index. New to our list? Welcome aboard — and thank you for your commitment to excellence in legal practice.

If you find this recap helpful, please consider forwarding it to colleagues or staff who may benefit. And if you have not already, visit the Minnesota Judicial Training and Education Website to subscribe and receive future updates directly.

Special thanks to the Martine Law attorneys and Paralegals who generously contributed their insight and expertise to all past training updates.

Martine Law Training Updates will continue to focus on key areas of litigation, including Criminal and Family Law, Evidence and Procedure, and Trial Advocacy. With a subscriber base approaching 4,000 attorneys, judges, and legal professionals, these updates reflect our firm’s belief that legal education is the soul of the judiciary.

Warm regards,
Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge

NORGAARD PLEA OF GUILTY (Unable to Recall Facts) Three Steps to Making a Proper Record

Dear Colleagues:

Are you confident your Minnesota “unable-to-recall” guilty pleas would survive appellate review?


A Norgaard plea applies when a defendant wants to plead guilty (often for a plea bargain) but can’t recall the events due to intoxication or amnesia—and unlike an Alford plea, the defendant is not claiming innocence.

In this Martine Law Training Update, I break the procedure down into a practical three-step checklist and provide a ready-to-use in-court script that tracks the Norgaard Addendum (Rule 15, Appendix H)—so judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys can make a complete record in real time.

👉 Click below for a print-ready copy of Training Update #25-12 (and keep the in-court script handy for your next plea hearing).
Martine Law Training Update #25-12

WARRANTLESS ARRESTS & DETENTIONS: 36- & 48-Hour Rules

Dear Colleagues,

Attached is our newest Martine Law Training Update, titled:
“WARRANTLESS ARRESTS & DETENTIONS: 36 & 48 Hour Rules”

This update focuses on one of the most fundamental — and often misunderstood — aspects of criminal procedure: Minnesota’s 36- and 48-hour rules following an adult defendant’s arrest and continued detention. These rules are not technicalities; they are core constitutional safeguards that every judge and attorney should be able to calculate confidently and explain clearly to clients, law enforcement, and judicial officers.

This update is designed as a “Quick Attorney Reference Guide” and breaks the topic down into three practical questions:

(1) What is the 36-hour rule, and how is the time computed for warrantless arrests vs. arrests on a complaint/warrant?

(2) What is the 48-hour rule under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin and Minn. R. Crim. P. 4.03, and how does it interact with the 36-hour rule?

(3) What are the potential remedies when either rule is violated, including how the Wiberg factors and burdens of proof apply?

To help attorneys quickly calculate the 36- and 48-hour timeframes, this update includes easy-to-read visual charts that walk through real-world arrest scenarios day by day, making the 36- and 48-hour timing questions easy to see at a glance.

My hope is that you will review the attached update, print it or save it where you can reach it quickly, and consider sharing it with colleagues who handle bail, first appearances, or omnibus issues. A solid grasp of the 36- and 48-hour rules not only protects defendants’ rights but also helps judges and practitioners avoid potential violations that can derail otherwise strong cases.

As always, I welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions for future topics.

You can read or download the 5-page update here:
Click here for Training Update 25 – 11, Warrantless Arrests & Detentions: 36 & 48 Hour Rules


Special Thanks to Martine Law attorneys Tyler Martin, Abbey Rostamo, Kalen Best, Jude Jaber, Lizzy Cavanaugh, and Bruno Netto for generously contributing their insight and expertise to this update.


Martine Law Training Updates will continue to focus on key areas of litigation, including Criminal and Family Law, Evidence and Procedure, and Trial Advocacy. With a subscriber base of more than 4,000 attorneys, judges, and legal professionals, these updates reflect our firm’s commitment to the belief that Legal Education is the Heart of the Judiciary. 

Warm regards,
Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge

JUDICIAL & LEGAL WRITING – The Number One Rule for Improvement = CUTTING (25-10)

Dear Colleaques,

Attached is our newest Martine Law Training Update, titled: “JUDICIAL & LEGAL WRITING: The Number One Rule for Improvement = CUTTING.”

There are many books and articles dedicated to improving 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 unnecessary words is key to improving your writing.

Judges, attorneys, and other legal practitioners say the same thing about written legal submissions: they are too long. Most “legal writing” resources respond with lectures on grammar, style guides, and terminology that nobody has time to wade through. This Training Update takes a different approach. It focuses on one simple rule that will immediately improve every brief, motion, and email you write: cut unnecessary words.

Drawing on my experience reading thousands of briefs, motions, and emails from attorneys, I walk through concrete, before-and-after examples showing how to turn a bloated paragraph into something short, clear, and persuasive. The Update then breaks legal writing down into three practical levels—the sentence, the paragraph, and the final product—and gives you specific, easy-to-use techniques for each.

If you want your next submission to be easier for a judge to read, understand, and rule on, I encourage you to take a few minutes to read the full Training Update and share it with your colleagues and staff. A modest investment of time now will pay off in every brief you file going forward.


You can read or download the 3-page update here:
📄 Click here for Training Update 25-10: Judicial & Legal Writing


Martine Law Training Updates will continue to focus on key areas of litigation, including Criminal and Family Law, Evidence and Procedure, and Trial Advocacy. With a subscriber base of nearly 4,000 attorneys, judges, and legal professionals, these updates reflect our firm’s commitment to the belief that Legal Education is the Heart of the Judiciary. 

Warm regards,
Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge

Minnesota Judicial Training & Education Website

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: 15 Categories Every Judge and Attorney Should Recognize and Avoid (25-9)

Dear Colleagues,

Attached is our newest Martine Law Training Update, titled:
“Prosecutorial Misconduct: 15 Categories Every Attorney and Judge Should Recognize and Avoid”

This is one of the most comprehensive training updates I have produced to date. At 23 pages, it is designed not only as an informative resource but also as a statewide training tool for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.

Although this update is titled Prosecutorial Misconduct, the focus is not on labels but on impact. Whether the conduct is characterized as error or misconduct matters less than the effect, because either, when serious enough, can deprive a defendant of a fair trial. Misconduct implies a deliberate or reckless violation; error may reflect an honest mistake. But both threaten the same outcome: injustice.

For that reason, this update does not attempt to parse whether a particular instance should be labeled “misconduct” or “error.” That distinction is best left to the appellate courts. Our focus here is practical: identifying improper prosecutorial conduct in all its forms so trial attorneys can recognize it, object to it, and preserve the issue for review.

The deeper concern, and the reason this update was created, is that these problems are not new. For decades, the Minnesota Supreme Court has made clear that prosecutors are not simply advocates seeking victory, but officers of justice with a duty to safeguard fairness—even when doing so weakens the State’s case. As the Court has long reminded us: “The prosecutor’s interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”

Despite this clear guidance, the same forms of misconduct continue to appear in trial records with troubling frequency. The problem is not a lack of clarity in the law—the rules are well-established—but a repeating generational pattern. Each new wave of prosecutors, eager to prove themselves in court, repeats the same mistakes made by those before them. The result is a predictable cycle: misconduct occurs, defense counsel objects, trial courts rule, and appellate courts issue yet another opinion restating principles that have been settled for decades. Most of these opinions today are nonprecedential, not because the law is unsettled, but because the errors are the same ones we have seen for generations.

This update is designed to help break that cycle. It sets out the 15 most common categories of prosecutorial misconduct seen in Minnesota courts, illustrated with leading cases, examples, and practice points. Together, these categories form a shared framework for all trial participants—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges—to recognize misconduct when it occurs, understand its significance, and take corrective action in real-time.

a) Prosecutors can use this update as an internal training tool to ensure advocacy remains effective while still within ethical boundaries.

b) Defense attorneys can use it to recognize misconduct as it occurs, object promptly, and preserve a clean record for appeal.

c) Judges can use it to guide intervention, remembering that the Minnesota Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts also bear responsibility for curbing misconduct—even when counsel fails to object.

The 15 Categories of Misconduct Covered in this Update:

  1. Shifting the Burden of Proof
  2. Injecting Issues Broader Than Guilt or Innocence
  3. Accusing Defendant of Tailoring Testimony
  4. Asking “Were They Lying” Questions
  5. Eliciting Inadmissible Evidence
  6. Misstating the Burden of Proof
  7. Misstating the Presumption of Innocence
  8. Expressing a Personal Opinion – Vouching
  9. Belittling the Defense
  10. Inflaming the Passions of the Jury
  11. Commenting on a Defendant’s Failure to Testify
  12. Misusing Spreigl Evidence
  13. Speculating About Events Absent a Factual Basis
  14. Eliciting Improper or Highly Prejudicial Testimony
  15. Injecting Self into Proceedings: “I,” “We,” “Me”

Importantly, these ethical limits do not require prosecutors to be bland, formulaic, or restrained in their passion. Minnesota courts have repeatedly affirmed that vigorous advocacy is entirely proper—so long as it remains grounded in admissible evidence and accurate law.

I encourage you to read and share this update with your colleagues. Whether you are a prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge, this resource is designed to promote more effective advocacy, fewer repeated mistakes, and a stronger commitment to justice and fairness in every courtroom.

You can read or download the full 23-page update here:
📄 Click here for Training Update 25-9 – Prosecutorial Misconduct


Special Thanks to Martine Law attorneys Luke McClure, Tyler Martin, Abbey Rostamo, and Kalen Best for generously contributing their insight and expertise to this update.

Acknowledgment: This update builds upon training materials first developed in 2005 by then–Assistant Hennepin County Attorneys Michael K. Walz, Jean E. Burdorf, and David C. Brown. Their work laid an important foundation for understanding the nature and scope of prosecutorial misconduct in Minnesota.


Martine Law Training Updates will continue to focus on key areas of litigation, including Criminal and Family Law, Evidence and Procedure, and Trial Advocacy. With a subscriber base of nearly 4,000 attorneys, judges, and legal professionals, these updates reflect our firm’s commitment to the belief that Legal Education is the Heart of the Judiciary. 

Warm regards,
Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge
alan@xmartinelaw.com