WHAT EVERY JUDGE & ATTORNEY NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT HANDLING EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL – 10 BASIC RULES (16-03)

BUT FIRST A NOTE ABOUT THE “JUDICIAL RESOURCE LIBRARY”: If you are getting this blog post via email please note that clicking on the above title (should be blue in the email) will take you to the blog website containing all past training updates and the “Judicial Resource Library”. The Judicial Resource Library is designed to be a simple one-click research site for judges and attorneys with hyperlinks to numerous legal research and reference sites, including but not limited to:

  1. State and Federal Legal Search Engines;
  2. Minnesota State Statutes;
  3. Rules of Criminal, Civil, Family & Juvenile Procedure;
  4. Rules of Evidence;
  5. General Rules of Practice (including all 10 titles);
  6. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines;
  7. Attorney and Judicial Rules of Ethics;
  8. Payable List for Misdemeanor Offenses;
  9. The full text of the Minnesota and US Constitution;
  10. And, of course, all past Judicial Training Updates;
  11. Click on “Judicial Resource Library” to see if this site can help you. 

FOR ATTORNEYS: If it’s your first trial or it’s been a while since you’ve tried a case, here’s a handy list of 10 steps to take when introducing your evidence at trial.

FOR JUDGES: The procedure for introducing evidence during trial is one of many topics that the presiding judge should discuss with both attorneys during the pretrial management conference. 

STEP 1: Mark your exhibit for identification. The first step in offering an exhibit into evidence is to have it marked for purposes of identification. Once an exhibit is marked, it becomes part of the clerk’s record and can be designated as part of the record on appeal. When you should mark your exhibits varies from court to court? Traditionally the court clerk marked an exhibit when a witness was first to be asked about it. You’ve seen this on old TV shows: while the witness is on the stand, the attorney asks the clerk to mark the item “for purposes of identification,” and then everyone waits while the clerk places an identifying mark on the exhibit and logs it in the clerk’s record. This slow and dull process has led many judges to now require that exhibits be premarked, i.e., marked before trial begins or when court is not in session and before counsel begins questioning the witness. This issue should be addressed during the pretrial conference.

STEP 2: Show your exhibit to opposing counsel. Show the exhibit to opposing counsel when you ask that it be marked for identification. If the exhibit was premarked, show it to opposing counsel before you show it to the witness. This issue should be addressed during the pretrial conference.

STEP 3: Show your exhibit to the judge. If an exhibit was copied, hand the clerk both the original exhibit to be marked and a copy of the exhibit for the judge’s personal use. The process for providing a copy of the exhibit to the judge may differ depending on whether your trial is civil, criminal or family, etc. Many judges have personal preferences and different expectations when it comes to this issue.  You need to know what those are. 

STEP 4: Develop a factual basis for admitting your exhibit into evidence. In order to avoid the proverbial “Objection – lack of foundation”, use methods developed during pretrial preparation to establish the required factual basis supporting admission of the exhibit, e.g. ask the witness questions you’ve prepared for this purpose, ask the court to take judicial notice, rely on prior stipulations or perhaps requests for admissions if they provide the factual basis. Any anticipated admissibility problems should be discussed during the pretrial conference.

STEP 5: Offer your exhibit into evidence. Offer the exhibit into evidence immediately after laying the foundation for introducing it into evidence. It is not unusual for an attorney, after laying proper foundation, to forget to actually offer the exhibit into evidence. “Objection, counsel is asking questions about an item that is NOT in evidence.” It is usually a problem easily fixed but you may look inexperienced in the process. Any anticipated admissibility problems should be discussed during the pretrial conference.

STEP 6: Anticipate and prepare for objections to admitting your evidence. Use an “evidence memo” or other pretrial preparation to show the court that the opposing party’s objection or claim of privilege is without merit. Anticipating objections or other admissibility problems and addressing them during the pretrial conference is critical to effective trial management.

STEP 7: Make an offer of proof. An offer of proof must be made to challenge on appeal a trial court’s exclusion of evidence. Minn. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). The only exception to this rule is if the substance of the excluded evidence is apparent from the context within which the question was asked. An offer of proof is a disclosure, made outside the hearing of the jury, of the substance, purpose, and relevance of evidence the offering party seeks to introduce. The legal reasons to make an offer of proof are threefold:

  • To persuade the judge before a ruling is made to admit the evidence;
  • To persuade the judge after a ruling is made to reconsider the ruling; and
  • To create a record for appeal that the judge was specifically aware of the nature of the evidence being excluded.

I encourage you to read Training Update 15-02 titled: Evidentiary Rulings – Preserving the Record – 5 Rules every Judge (and Attorney) Must Know. 

STEP 8: Obtain a definitive ruling on admissibility. It is not enough to object to evidence or to make an offer of proof. The court MUST make a definitive ruling and the parties have an absolute right to insist on a ruling. It is the responsibility of the party objecting to the evidence to make sure the judge actually rules on the objection. The party making an objection should also be sure that the court reporter is present when the ruling is made or, if not present, that the matter is placed on the record at a later point when the reporter is present. See Training Update 15-02. Failing to make a definitive ruling is usually a sign of judicial inexperience. 

STEP 9: Disclose to the jury the substance of the admitted exhibit. Tell the jurors (thru testimony) about the exhibit admitted in evidence to make them aware of the exhibit’s meaning and importance. I have seen many occasions where following the receipt of an exhibit into evidence there was little or no follow up testimony regarding the exhibit leaving the jurors noticeably dissatisfied.

STEP 10: Verify the recorded admission of exhibits into evidence. Make certain that all proffered exhibits have been formally and unconditionally received into evidence and the clerk’s record reflects their receipt. Verify this by reviewing your exhibit log to ascertain whether the court has admitted all exhibits, comparing your exhibit log with the court clerk’s formal record. You can then re-offer any exhibit for which there is any question (and obtain a definitive ruling).

Note: Always double check to make sure that only properly admitted exhibits are taken back to the jury room for deliberations. I once ordered a mistrial following a verdict of guilty because a copy of the defendants criminal history printout somehow got mixed in with exhibits that went back to the jury room.

TOPIC FOR NEXT WEEKS TRAINING UPDATE – I will answer the following question:

QUESTION: In a jury trial how can you tell if your presiding judge is either inexperienced, incompetent or simply lazy? 

Keep fighting for what you know is right.

Alan F. Pendleton (Former District Court Judge)

alan.pendleton@mnlegalupdates.com

The Five Most Common Regrets That People Have at The End of Their Lives (15-19)

END OF LIFE REGRETS: No matter who you are or what you do, at the time of your impending death, you will look back on your life with a much different perspective than you have now. Only by then it might be too late to do anything about it.

Ask yourself these questions now, while you still have a chance to change:

  1. If you had a crystal ball to see what you would regret as you were dying, would you make changes now?
  2. Do you ever imagine what thoughts might go thru your mind during the final years, months, and days of your life?

This training update answers those questions by summarizing the five most common regrets that people have at the end of their lives.

PENDLETON UPDATE 15-19

Image

Thanks to everyone for helping propel this judicial training blog to national recognition

TIME SPENT IN JAIL WHILE ON PROBATION: Urban Myth – The 12 Month Limit (15-18)

local jails
2015 calendar

URBAN MYTH – Many years ago, an entire generation of judges and attorneys were taught that Minnesota law (MS 609.135, subd 4) established a 12 month cap on the total amount of local jail that a defendant could be required to serve (whether as a condition of probation or as a sanction for violating probation), and that any incarceration in excess of 12 months would require execution of the stayed sentence = prison.

This update is designed to dispel that myth and provide the bench and bar with a simple explanation and general rule along with supporting authority.

TO READ THE FULL UPDATE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK: 

PendletonUpdate 15-18

WARNING SIGNS FOR JUDGES & ATTORNEYS – Ten Habits of Chronically Unhappy People (15-17)

Unhappy.people

WE ALL WORK IN A HYPER-COMPETITIVE, STRESS FILLED ENVIRONMENT: The practice of law can be demanding and exceedingly stressful. Put an ordinary individual (which includes even the most well balanced and well-adjusted judge or lawyer) in a hyper-competitive, stress filled, emotional, high stakes environment such as the law, and you have the formula for a psychological crisis. According to an often-cited Johns Hopkins University study of more than 100 occupations, researchers found that lawyers lead the nation with the highest incidence of depression and unhappiness.

TEN (10) TRAITS & HABITS EVERY JUDGE & ATTORNEY SHOULD LOOK OUT FOR:   Although there are many legal professionals that are truly happy, most of us bounce back and forth between happiness and unhappiness depending on the day. According to Psychology Today, there are ten traits and habits that chronically unhappy people have mastered. However, it is important to remember, we all have bad days, even weeks when we fall down in all ten areas. The difference between a happy and unhappy life is how often and how long we stay there. This Training Update outlines the ten traits and habits to guard against.

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

PendletonUpdate 15-17

 

PRESS RELEASE – BEST LEGAL BLOG CONTEST FINALISTS

blog-nominee-altFor Immediate Release: Judge Pendleton’s “2015 Judicial Training & Education Blog” Has Been Nominated for The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest.

Minnesota readers have spoken, from a field of more than 2,000 potential nominees, the 2015 Judicial Training & Education Blog has received enough nominations to join the top 250 legal blogs participating in one of the largest competitions for legal blog writing online today. With an open voting format that allows participants one vote per blog, the competition will be a true test of the dedication of each blog’s existing readers.

The Judicial Training Blog is the only Minnesota Blog to make it this far in the education category of the competition. Each blog will compete for rank within its category. The three blogs that receive the most votes in any category will be crowned overall winners. The competition ends at 12:00 AM on October 9th, at which point the votes will be tallied and the winners announced.

Readers can vote for the “2015 Judicial Training & Education Blog” at: https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/blog-category/education/

NORGAARD PLEA OF GUILTY – Unable to Recall Facts (15-16)

NORGAARD PLEA OF GUILTY: A Norgaard Plea is a procedure that governs situations where a defendant wants to enter a plea of guilty (usually in order to take advantage of a plea agreement) but is unable to recall facts damnesiaue to intoxication or amnesia. Unlike an Alford plea (see update 14-18) in a Norgaard plea, defendant does not make a claim he is innocent. State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn.1994); State v. Johnson, A14-1605, Minn. App. June 29, 2015.

To the dismay of the Court of Appeals, there are certain judicial mistakes/oversights that tend to reoccur with every new generation of judges and attorneys. Two of the most common oversights involve Alford and Norgaard pleas of guilty. These oversights almost always involve failure to make a complete record. Creating a full and complete record to support any plea of guilty should be viewed as a collaborative effort shared by both judge and attorneys.

The proper procedure for an Alford plea of guilty can be found in Update 14-18, dated October 8, 2014.

This week’s judicial update outlines the procedure that the district court must follow before a Norgaard plea of guilty can be accepted.

TO READ THE FULL UPDATE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK:

PendletonUpdate 15-16

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

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

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

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)

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)

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