Category Archives: 2026 Martine Law Firm

DEMAND FOR SUBSTITUTE PUBLIC DEFENDER: How to Avoid Reversible Error

Posted on February 19, 2026 | 1 comment

SUBJECT: Training Update 26-03 – Substitute Public Defender Requests: Avoiding Reversible Error

Colleagues,

I have just posted a new Minnesota Judicial Training Update (26-03) addressing a situation every judge and criminal practitioner eventually encounters:

QUESTION: When a Defendant demands a new public defender in the middle of a criminal case, what is the trial judge legally required to do — and what common mistakes can create reversible error?

These moments often arise unexpectedly — usually at emotionally charged hearings — and they present real risk for reversible error if the court responds too quickly or relies on common but incorrect assumptions about substitute counsel requests.

This update provides a clear, practical framework designed for real courtroom use, including:

  • The three general rules that always apply under Minnesota law
  • What a judge should never say when a defendant requests new counsel
  • A structured three-step approach for handling the request on the record
  • The “searching inquiry” standard explained in practical terms
  • A sample judicial findings script that can be adapted immediately

The goal is simple: help judges and attorneys create a clean, reviewable record while maintaining courtroom control and protecting the integrity of the attorney-client relationship.

If you regularly handle criminal cases — whether as judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel — I think you will find this update both practical and immediately usable.

👉 The link to the full update is below.

As always, thank you for your continued commitment to thoughtful and professional courtroom practice.

Warm regards,

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

1 Comment

Posted in 2026 Martine Law Firm, Substitute Public Defender

Tagged , , , , ,

Calculating Criminal History Scores: In-State vs. Out-of-State Convictions (This is a Legal Landmine for Both the State and Defense)

Posted on February 2, 2026 | Leave a comment

SUBJECT: New Training Update: Out-of-State Convictions — A Sentencing Trap You Can’t Ignore

Dear Colleagues,

I’m sharing a new Martine Law Training Update addressing a deceptively common — and highly consequential — sentencing issue: how out-of-state convictions may (and may not) be used when calculating a defendant’s criminal history score.

In State v. Johnson (Minn. App. Jan. 20, 2026), the Court of Appeals makes clear that relying on a PSI alone to establish out-of-state convictions is a legal landmine. The case also delivers a critical lesson with real-world consequences: whether defense counsel objected at sentencing directly affected the remedy on appeal — including whether the State got a second chance to fix the record.

This update breaks down:

  • What Minn. R. Evid. 1005 requires (and what it doesn’t),
  • Why sentencing is an evidentiary determination, not a ministerial step,
  • How a single objection — or silence — can preserve or destroy appellate leverage,
  • Practical best practices for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.

If you handle felony sentencing, review PSIs, advise clients at plea hearings, or preside over criminal cases, this is essential reading. I encourage you to read it, download it, and share it with colleagues who may not realize how high the stakes are until it’s too late.

The link to the full update is below.

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

Leave a comment

Posted in 2026 Martine Law Firm, Criminal History Score, SENTENCING

Tagged , , , , , ,

AI BASED LEGAL RESEARCH – How to Avoid Hallucinations and Improve Accuracy

Posted on January 19, 2026 | Leave a comment

Dear Colleagues,

Artificial intelligence is now a routine part of legal research—but courts are making it equally clear that delegating judgment to AI is not an option. Sanctions, fee-shifting, disciplinary referrals, and reputational damage are no longer theoretical risks when hallucinated cases or fake citations find their way into filings.

The problem is not that AI is “too powerful.”
The problem is that it must be supervised like any untested expert witness.

Martine Law Firm Training Update 26-01 introduces a simple, courtroom-tested solution:

Cross-Examine the AI before you rely on it or cite it.

This update provides a practical, lawyer-friendly framework for using AI safely and effectively in legal research, including:

  • A three-phase protocol (Prepare → Interrogate → Verify) for supervising AI-assisted research
  • A cross-examination checklist to expose uncertainty, weak assumptions, and fabricated authority
  • Ready-to-copy prompts that force reasoning, demand sources, and build a real verification pathway
  • Clear guidance on why this is now an ethics and competence issue, not merely a best practice

Used properly, AI can function like a fast, tireless junior associate. Used improperly, it can become a professional liability. This update is designed to help you capture the speed benefits of AI—without inheriting polished nonsense.

👉 Click here to read the full, print-ready Training Update 26-01

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

Special Thanks to Martine Law attorneys Rhiley O’Rourke, Cynthia Smith, Lizzy Cavanaugh, Tyler Martin, Ariana Wright, Dr. Charlene Evans-Smith, and Makayla Stromgen (certified student attorney) 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, 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

Leave a comment

Posted in 2026 Martine Law Firm, Artificial Intelligence

Tagged , , , , , , , ,