In the News

October 13, 2010

Judge, challenger debate court budgets, scheduling, sentencing, a bit of politics

By Gretchen Schlosser, West Central Tribune

WILLMAR — Eighth Judicial District Judge Kathryn N. Smith and her challenger, Renville Assistant County Attorney Glen Jacobsen, faced off in the second half of Tuesday evening's debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

• Smith was appointed to the bench in 1997 and was re-elected in 1998 and 2004.
• She is chambered in Kandiyohi County but also hears cases in Meeker County.
• Jacobsen has been the assistant county attorney in Renville County since 2002.
• He was the chief deputy county attorney in Mower County from 1997 to 2001.

Jacobsen wants to change how cases are scheduled before the district court.

Allowing each hearing its own 30-minute time slot leaves excessive downtime for judges and attorneys between hearings, he said.

He proposes to do block scheduling, having all those appearing before the court that day arrive at the beginning of the day, with an earlier start time and hearings continuing through the day. "The downtime is excessive," he said. "A block schedule would avoid downtime and add efficiency."

Smith countered that Kandiyohi County has up to five judges working at one time, often with the same set of prosecutors and public defenders. Those attorneys would be better served by having a specific time for hearings, which are not automatically set for 30 minutes, but rather for the amount of time that is likely needed, she said.

The local judges developed a strategic plan in 2005, Smith said, that has helped reduce staffing costs by 30 percent by sharing district administration with the Seventh District and reducing administrative staffing. Those actions have been cited by state judicial officials, she said.

Both candidates noted that stayed sentences, as opposed to defendants sent to prison, are set by the state commission on sentencing guidelines. Those convicted of property crimes are sentenced to time in the local jail and probation, Smith noted, with people convicted of "person" crimes more likely to face prison time. The sentencing guidelines include sanctions for each possible crime and take into consideration a criminal history score, based on the person's previous convictions.

"I don't depart (from the guideline sentence) without significant reason," Smith said.

Jacobsen noted that an often unused or delayed sentencing penalty is local jail time. The court can send someone to jail for 90 days on a misdemeanor or up to one year on a gross misdemeanor. People often ask not to be sent to jail because of their job, or because of holidays or until harvest is complete.

"Jail is not something meant to be convenient," he said. "It's meant to be punishment."

Recommending changes to the sentencing guidelines isn't within the purview of a district judge, Jacobsen said. Rather, changes would need to come from the state legislature.

Both the judge and the challenger concurred that political parties shouldn't endorse judges.

"There is no place for politics in these races," Smith said, adding that a judge makes his or her decisions based on law, not political leaning.

Jacobsen acknowledged that he was asked by the state Republican Party to seek their endorsement, but choose not to pursue it. He supports the open election system for judgeships, where judges serve six-year terms and stand for election. There have been proposals in the state to have a retention system, where voters are asked if a judge should be retained in their position.

September 16, 2010

This is an edited version of the comments presented to the Kandiyohi County Bar Association meeting on Sept. 16, 2010 at Melvin's on the Lake in Spicer, MN.

I am Glen Jacobsen, Assistant Renville County Attorney and I am running for Judge.

Per ex-Chief Justice Magnuson, we are now dealing with a "whole new normal".

Leadership by the Bench is needed so that all judicial system participants can use all available resources, including time, in the most effective manner possible. As I mentioned during an interview a couple of weeks ago with the Renville County Register newspaper, over the years I have player literally thousands of games of solitaire on my PDA, hours and hours of down time, just waiting between cases, waiting for the judge, waiting for defendants that don't appear, waiting for all the participants to get together again for the next case. This is not an effective use of court time.

Over my 23 years of legal experience, I have prosecuted cases in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 8th and 10th Judicial Districts. I am able to draw from that considerable experience, much of it in courts with a busier schedule than we have here, to develop and implement procedures that will make our court processes and procedures more efficient, without sacrificing the time and attention that needs to be devoted to each case. Priority must remain in ensuring that justice is done in each and every case, despite ever diminishing resources.

Some examples of how the courts can become more efficient:

1. Start earlier, take shorter lunches and run longer
2. Block schedules instead of individual ½ hour sessions
3. Use a default Omnibus Hearing until and unless proper motions are filed
4. Require proper Omnibus motions, that meet the specificity requirements caselaw
5. Block settings for court trials and short contested hearings

Following my comments, my opponent spoke and said that they require Omnibus motions be filed and that block scheduling is more inefficient as participants know to come for a set time and their case is heard in that set time block. This is just simply not true. It may well be efficient for the Defendant in a criminal case, but that is the only person for whom it is efficient. When that person decides not to show up and a warrant is issued, everyone else; the Judge, the court staff, the prosecutor the defense attorney, all have to wait 29 minutes for the next defendant to arrive, if they arrive. Defense attorneys now serve and file Omnibus motions drafted before they even read the police reports. They just check each and every box, knowing that they don't have to do more until the day of the hearing, when they often just say, "Never mind". What I am proposing is that no contested hearing is even set until the defense attorney has read the reports, has identified an issue like "no Miranda warning prior to interrogation" at which time they can now file their motion identifying the issue and the person they wish to cross examine on that particular issue. It is true that if court trials and short contested hearings are set on a block calendar officers might have to wait for their case to be called. Officers contract's call for them to be paid at least 2 hours, if not 3, just to be called to court if they are off duty. Since they are getting paid, they can easily sit and wait for their case to be called. Such a calendar would allow the Judge to stay on the bench and the attorneys to remain busy moving from one case to the next without interminable delays between them. In this type of a calendar, I have dealt with over 60 pre-trial hearings in one day, and have tried or resolved 25-30 court trials and contested hearings in one day. Our current calendar would require close to two weeks to deal with that many files.

One of my campaign slogans over the past few years has been, 'If you do the Crime, you should do the Time.' That slogan is still true today. DWI sentencing has mandatory minimums for repeat offenses. Minimums should be just that, the absolute minimum sentence. They should not be the normal and regular sentence that virtually every DWI defendant receives, as is now the case.

Fines should hurt. They should also be tailored to each defendant's ability to pay. 25 years ago a typical DWI fine with $500, out of a statutory maximum of $700. Today, DWI defendants receive a fine of $400 out of a maximum of $1000. Inflation has not touched the price of a DWI fine.

Community Work Service hours need to be sufficient to repay the community. They also need to be supervised, monitored and recorded by someone other than the defendant themselves. Stayed prison sentences can, by statute, include a number of conditions, including treatment, but also including up to a year of local jail time. ALL options, including local jail, need to be considered in each and every case.

DWI and Drug courts work. But as a new type of court, they seem to be the first casualties of budget cutting. The Courts need to take the lead in bringing the tactics and procedures that we know work from those courts and bring them to the cases we have, even if we don't have a specific DWI or Drug Court. Staggered sentences do work. Short but quick probation sanctions are effective, but they are not being used, despite my opponent's claims to the contrary.

Conditions of release must be enforced or they are not worth the paper then are printed on. Officers MUST be allowed to arrest and take someone into custody when they violate the Judge's ordered conditions of release.

I do not, however, by any of these comments, mean to state, or even imply, that I have prejudged any case, type of case, or party in any case that would come before me. It is my intention to be scrupulously fair, unbiased and just in any determination of the facts, application of law and final judgment and decree.

Juvenile cases, both Delinquency and Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS), are one area where more effort now will bring in enormous dividends, both in time and money, down the road. Failure to invest the time and resources, by the Court, the County Attorney, Human Services and the defense bar will only increase future expenditures exponentially.

For 5 years prior to starting law school I worked as a Child Care Worker at St. Joseph's Home for Children in Minneapolis and the Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Facility. I know firsthand the problems and costs, both monetary and personal, associated with not addressing issues and concerns with children and their families fully, completely and at the first available opportunity. This is one area where we simply can't come up short.

Speaking strictly for myself, I would not be here today running against a sitting judge. I am here because so many you, the people and attorneys of Kandiyohi County, asked me to be here.

I am here because I believe that I can do more, do better, be more efficient and be more consistent.

I can be a better judge for the 8th Judicial District and the people of the State of Minnesota. Thank you.

September 10, 2010

Survey by the Minnesota Newspaper Association to the candidates for Disctrict Court Judge

Q:	The judicial system is facing increasing cost pressures. Other than increased funding, what steps can be taken to increase efficiency in the courts and still afford individuals due process under the law?
A:	Our current criminal court calendars provide each defendant a set period of time, usually ½ hour, for most of their hearings. One case is set for 8:30, the next for 9:00, then 9:30 and so on. When a defendant fails to show up for court, the Court, court staff, attorneys, etc all have to wait ½ hour for the next case. Other cases only need 5-10 minutes of Court time, so 20-25 minutes of that half hour is wasted as well. This wasted time multiplies daily and weekly and over the years turns into hours and hours of inefficiently used time. Even if someone can find something to do for a few minutes between cases, it is not the quality time that allows for proper concentration. Court hearings should start promptly on time. Roll call should be taken of all people that are present and ready to proceed. They get called first and those people and cases that are not ready, or that arrive late, get called at the end of the calendar. The Court should insist on timely and specific pleadings. "Boilerplate" or "Shotgun" motions that raise every issue, whether or not it is even possible in the case, need to be rejected by the Court. Motions need to be made with specificity, identifying the facts and issues to be raised so that the opposing party and witnesses can prepare and everyone can focus on the real issue at hand. Instead of following the current practice of setting an individual Omnibus Hearing for each case, they can be set on a block calendar for the determination of probable cause, until and unless a specific motion is made, identifying the issues to be heard, witnesses that need to be heard, citing appropriate case law and with a request for a hearing of a specific length. A 'default' OH hearing in which the Court rules on probable cause and takes a plea can be set on a block calendar. Only after a specific OH motion is made would the case be moved to a contested hearing calendar. Court trials can also be set on a block calendar of 15-20 defendants for a ½ day session. The Court can take any negotiated pleas first, then start running the trials back to back. Civil cases can also be set on block calendars for scheduling, settlement and pre-trial issues, until and unless a specific motion that will require a significant amount of time is filed. There will always be cases and hearings that are confidential or that require an amount of time be set aside to deal with them, but they are the exception, not the rule. The Court can be much more efficient with the time it has. Start early, start on time, keep the calendar moving, shorten lunch and start again promptly in the afternoon.
Q:	Do you support the judicial retention election system as recommended by the Quie Commission?
A:	No, I do not. Other than the 2nd and 4th Judicial Districts, the electorate for District Court judges is already too large. And there have been discussions about consolidating judicial districts in order to save court administration funds, which would serve to make the electorate even more distant from most the judges they are called upon to elect. Moving to a retention election system would only serve to make a judicial appointment a life time appointment as no one would be able to educate such a large electorate about the failings of a judge hundreds of miles away. Both the current system, as well as the Quie proposal, are flawed in that they allow a partisan Governor to appoint a judge without any checks or balances. There is no ratification by the Legislature. The selection committee is supposed to forward the best candidates, but there have been many times when the appointment goes to a friend, advisor or previous co-worker of the governor. And no one knows why an excellent judicial candidate is not even granted an interview by the committee, as it is a totally secret and hidden process. But the bottom line is that I do not support any proposal that calls for me, or any voter, to be disenfranchised. I will not willingly give up my right to vote.
Q:	Do you intend to seek endorsement and/or financial contributions from political parties and other special-interest groups? If so, which organizations/individuals have endorsed you?
A:	A number of individuals have endorsed my candidacy; their names are on my website, www.glenjacobsen.com. I have no knowledge of where my campaign contributions are coming from, as the rules require that I not have that information so as to remain fair and unbiased.
Q:	Why are you running for office? What are your personal priorities?
A:	I am running for the office of District Court Judge as I am called to take the next step in my career of public service. I have been a prosecutor for the vast majority of my 23 years as an attorney. I have prosecuted cases from speeding tickets to rape, drugs and attempted homicide. I have been the voice both of the victim and of the People of the State of Minnesota. It is now time for me to contribute my knowledge, skills, wisdom and experience to the People as an impartial and unbiased Judge. My personal priorities include using the full range of sentencing and dispositional options available to the Court in criminal cases. There has been an abrogation of personal responsibility by many members of our society and it needs to be strengthened and refreshed, preferably by parents, family and friends, but ultimately by the Court if necessary. The Court must do more to protect the children that are falling through the cracks. Stronger measures must be taken sooner, before the damage is done. I also believe that a priority must be to increase the efficiency of the judicial system as a whole. Times have forced us to do more with less, we must adapt and modify the system so that justice is not forgotten or lost in our efforts to save money.
Q:	Briefly summarize your personal background and qualifications.
A:	I attained my B.A. through the ParaCollege at St. Olaf College in Northfield in 1979. I had an interdisciplinary concentration that combined social psychology, political science and the law. After obtaining some 'real world' experience, including working for a number of years as a child care worker at St. Joseph's Home for Children in Minneapolis and at the Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center, I returned to school at William Mitchell College of Law, where I obtained my J.D. in 1987. I worked as a municipal prosecutor for a number of jurisdictions around the Twin Cities metro area until 1997, when I left for a position as Chief Deputy Mower County Attorney in Austin. I moved out to Renville County, and my present position as Assistant Renville County Attorney in 2002. I reside on my farm with my wife of 29 years, Donna. I have conducted literally thousands of court trials and hundreds of jury trials over the years. I always strive to seek justice in the cases presented to me, from the charging decision through plea or trial. I currently serve on the Supreme Court Board of Continuing Legal Education, where I am in my second 3 year term. I have been a member of the National Mock Trial Association's Judges Hall of Fame since 1996, where I have been judging the Regional and National Championship trial rounds for over 20 years. If elected to be the next judge holding Seat #1, Kandiyohi County, Eighth Judicial District, I promise to be fair, unbiased, conscientious, hard-working, prompt, efficient and, above all, just.