Restorations in Progress

Giant lightThe huge, high-tech light pictured on the right is not part of a hospital- at least not in the traditional sense. This is one of the tools that one can see when they visit the Midwest Art Conservation Center (MACC). We paid a visit last week, where the last installment of our judge portraits were getting their state-of-the-art restoration treatment. This visit provided us a rare opportunity to see our judges up close, even under the microscope! The details of the portraits, including the canvases, varnishes, brush strokes, are simply unbelievable!  We also witnessed the painstaking process of cleaning each portrait, with hand-rolled cotton swabs. (Keep in mind that years of “smoking” had left a yellow-brown film on all of the gentlemen.)

Another interesting detail as to the history of the portraits was revealed during our visit. See the photo below taken on the back of a particular portrait indicating that Brewer entered it in the 16th Annual Exhibition of the Art Institute back in 1930. Is it possible that this was in fact the first of the portraits, which led Brewer to paint most of the others?

We would like to extend a huge thank you to Chief Conservator David Marquis and the other MACC staff for allowing us to visit the restoration in progress. Their informative explanation of the restoration process was most enlightening.  Until the portraits return to our walls, enjoy these pictures from our visit.

microscope

Microscope

Entry tag from 1930 Art Institute exhibition

Entry tag from 1930 Art Institute exhibition

close-up of canvas

Close-up of canvas and Judge Wilkin’s spectacles

Judge Sanborn on easel

Judge Sanborn “on the stand”

 

 

Questions of Guilt and Innocence

Inside a PrisonMuch discussion has resulted from the ten-segment Netflix documentary Making a Murderer, which focused on the convictions of Wisconsinite Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey.  While this riveting documentary didn’t address all the evidence involved in this real-live case, it did spark troubling questions about the criminal justice process itself: How precise is our system of determining if one is guilty or innocent? How safe is our criminal justice system from possible corruption and bias at the local level? How much of our system is fueled by a human need to believe that the dangerous people are safely locked up and cannot harm us?  And are remedies like the appeals process or habeas corpus adequate for such justice errors?These are not mere abstract questions, for doubts and mistakes regarding guilt and innocence have existed for as long as criminal justice has. The trial and evidence leading to Minnesota’s first individual execution left major doubts as to the convicted’s guilt. As DNA technology emerged, many criminal convictions were found to be erroneous, including Avery’s earlier conviction.  Most wrongful convictions, however, involve non-DNA factors.

Avery’s situation is not cause for Minnesotans to feel smug and safe in their own state from justice failures like wrongful convictions. The case of Richard Dzubiak was one of a St. Paul man convicted of killing his mother by pushing her down the stairs. It later came to light that the original forensic report had been misread, and that the victim had in fact died from a fatal self-inflicted dose of antidepressants. Dzubiak then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and receive a new trial, which was granted and resulted in his acquittal.  Another St. Paul man, Sherman Townsend, was charged with burglary of a Minneapolis residence on the word of the real burglar.  While Townsend was in prison serving the resulting sentence he received as part of a plea bargain, he met the actual burglar who was serving time on a different offense.  Fortunately this actual burglar stepped forward this time and testified that he had in fact committed the burglary, which led to an agreement between Townsend and prosecutors to have Townsend’s sentence commuted.  (It should be noted here that Townsend was an ex-con when the burglary occurred, which likely weakened his bargaining position with prosecutors.)

If you want to read more on the history and theory of wrongful convictions, consider these titles available at the Minnesota State Law Library:  Examining Wrongful Convictions: Stepping Back, Moving Morward (2014) by A. Redlich, et al., and False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent (2011) by Jim and Nancy Petro.  Also check out the National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan Law School If you or a relative has experienced what they believe is a wrongful conviction, know that challenging it is not a small legal task. You are strongly encouraged to work with a lawyer when exploring what possible post-conviction remedies you may have.  You can find a criminal lawyer through the Ramsey County Bar Association, or through the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Also consider contacting the Minnesota Innocence Project.

 

file0001711542405The first thought of many litigants who lose their case in Minnesota District Court is to appeal the decision. After all, the judge and jury got it all wrong as far as they are concerned. Indeed, sometimes a court DOES get it wrong, and appeals courts exist for this very reason. But self-represented litigants can be unpleasantly surprised at what an appeal requires, especially in terms of their time and energy. Before you decide that appeal is the answer to your unfavorable judgement, here is the very least of what you should be aware of.

1. Filing an appeal is expensive. The filing fee for an appeal in Minnesota is currently $550.  One must ask if this is really for it for minor adverse judgments, like a traffic violation. Of course, you may apply for a fee waiver, which may or may not be granted.  Further, if you lose on a civil appeal or the Court determines your civil appellate claim was frivolous, you could be ordered to pay costs for the opposing side.

 2.  For civil cases, you must also determine if your case is appealable Not every decision or judgment is technically eligible for appeal under Minnesota law. Best to read Rule 103.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3. Not every case has grounds for appeal, or merit. Filing an appeal is not a “do over” of the case, and mere dissatisfaction with the decision is not a legal basis to challenge a decision.  You also cannot bring new arguments, evidence, or witnesses into your appeal.  Read more about this on the MNCourts webpage.

4. There are time limits for when you can appeal. Civil appeal time limits might be governed under Rule 104.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure, but not always.  Criminal judgments have appeal time limits of their own.  Start with Rule 28 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure if you are trying to determine yours.

5. Preparing an appeal involves much more than simply filling out the forms. Much of the extensive research and paperwork you must do is toward the requirement that you prepare a written argument, or brief for your appeal.  (Most practicing attorneys will tell you they spent significant time researching and writing their first appellate brief in law school, and you likely will as well.) We have some appellate brief samples you can see here in the law library, plus this Libguide on appeals from the State Law Library offers online samples as well.

This all said, for pro se litigants who believe they have grounds for an appeal and want to pursue one, there are some additional resources which can help. The Courts webpage offers answers to basic questions on both civil and criminal appeals.  An excellent written guide for pro se litigants filing an appeal is this one from the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project.  Finally, the Minnesota State Law Library has recently started an appeals clinic, where attorneys can help you with questions including applicable deadlines, filing forms, and brief writing.

 

 

file1701261140831Have you completed your holiday travels for the year? Were they as smooth and predictable as you hoped? The following year might be an interesting one for Minnesota air travel, and not necessarily for reasons relating to the weather. Most people prefer to handle airport security details as quickly as possible and then be en route to their destinations. Next year could conceivably be more complicated, however, in the event that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decides a driver’s license is no longer enough for airline passengers to clear security in some states, most notably Minnesota.  In these states, drivers licenses have not complied with federal standards as established by the Real ID Act (enacted in 2005).  Basically, the standards of the Act require more stringent proof of identity than currently on a standard Minnesota driver’s license, so as to eventually allow users’ information to be shared in a national database.    Not everyone is on board with the DHS plan, however.  Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card.  According to the map shown, travelers can circumnavigate Minnesota’s noncompliance with an “enhanced” driver’s license.  This is no doubt why thousands of Minnesotans have recently applied for such an enhanced license.  The Department of Motor Vehicles can tell you about getting such a license. You can also check out this DHS page to read more about the Real ID Act and where travelers stand on using their drivers license for airport security.

The timing of this coincides with a recent Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) policy mandating electronic screening for “some” passengers, who were previously allowed to opt out of the scanner with a standard pat-down.  According to the TSA, the scanner technology offers superior “threat detection capabilities for both metallic and nonmetallic threat objects.” In other words, the scanners can catch weapons hidden in clothes that a pat-down might miss.  This predictably raises questions, such as why are they not simply mandating the scan for everyone? And which passengers are the “some” which will still no longer get to opt for the pat-down as opposed to submit to the scanner?

The law of airport security and its constitutional implications may not come up every day, but a couple of law review articles touch on this touchy subject. Check out The Post-TSA Airport: A Constitution Free Zone? recently published in the Pepperdine Law Review.  Also see Enhancing Security while Protecting Privacy: The Rights Implicated by Supposedly Heightened Airport Security from the Michigan State Law Review.

 

Divorce – Baby Steps to Big Steps

Woman walking awayMaybe after much thought, you have finally decided that you are ready to file for divorce. You expect that this will a big project, especially having seen how extensive the initial paperwork can be. You might also be feeling that you just need to get through the busy holiday season before you take any real steps.

First, be aware that the MNCourts online I-CAN system can help you streamline the preparation of your initial divorce filing. It does this by allowing you to type in information as prompted, and then by storing it and then formatting it into your own personalized petition papers to file.  Do you manage to find unscheduled bits of downtime during your busy holiday season? If so, here’s a suggestion for getting your divorce preparation underway:  Simply download or print out the Fast Facts worksheet from the I-CAN page, and then fill in the blanks provided for information such as addresses, birthdates, account numbers, etc. as your time permits.  Later on when you are less busy, you can take this written information you have prepared and sit down to enter it into your electronic I-CAN account.  Alternatively, you can get your new I-CAN account set up through your email, ready to access again at your convenience.

When you have your divorce initiation paperwork completed and printed out, you will want to make an appointment with the Ramsey Family Self-Help Center to go over these documents with their staff and make sure they are complete for filing.  There are other tools which can help you prepare for your upcoming divorce.  For instance, The Scott County Law Library offers a free divorce workshop every fourth Saturday of the month for those who might like some assistance with the I-CAN system.  If you are concerned for your safety, you may also want to consult the Ramsey Family Domestic Abuse/Harassment Office.

Good luck as you look ahead to 2016.

 

Weed for What Ails You

Cannabis leafThis year Minnesota joined 21 other states and adapted the Theraputic Research Act so as to allow for the medicinal use of marijuana.  Though the legislature was originally concerned about the medical side effects of chemotherapy for cancer, the final Act allowed nine qualifying conditions into the marijuana medicinal use program, including cancer; seizures including epilepsy; glaucoma; multiple sclerosis and other disorders that cause severe muscle spasms; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; HIV; AIDS; and Crohn’s disease.   Earlier this month however, the medicinal use exception under the Act was widened to include “intractable pain.” Specifically, this means pain that “cannot be removed or otherwise treated.”  For recreational use, however, “cannabis” remains illegal in Minnesota.   (See this map indicating which states allow legal use of medical or recreational marijuana.

This is still pretty newsworthy, considering the historical/legal/cultural roller coaster that marijuana has experienced in our society.  According to this timeline, the cultivation of hemp was encouraged in our nation’s early years for practical uses such as making rope. But the cultural climate had changed considerably by 1936, when the propaganda film Reefer Madness was produced to warn young people about the dangers of a life built around recreational marijuana use.

So if you or someone you love is experiencing what they consider to be intractable pain, is this the green light to light up?  Not exactly. To be covered under the Act, both a patient and their physician are required register with the Department of Health.  Meaning, a patient will first need to convince their physician that their pain indeed meets this “intractable” threshold.  Also, they will have to wait until August 2016 to actually receive the marijuana for use.  For more information about Minnesota’s medical cannabis program, please visit the Minnesota Department of Health’s medical cannabis website.

We don’t want your research of state marijuana laws and regulations to be intractably painful.  Start with these two Information Briefs from the Minnesota House Research Department: Medical Cannabis: A Guide to the Minnesota Law and Minnesota’s Medical Cannabis Therapeutic Research Act.  An emerging legal issue on this topic is the question of how an employer needs to accommodate a worker’s medical marijuana use, as highlighted by this interesting article in the December issue of Minnesota Bench & Bar written by University of Minnesota Law student Richard Sharp.  Additionally, some recent CLE’s available in the library address this particular issue:

  •  Public Sector Labor & Employment Law Manual 2015 – “The New Medical Marijuana Law – Implications for the Public Sector Employer and Employee” by T. Jacobson & T. Louris (MN-CLE)
  • Employment Law Handbook 2015– “Clearing the Haze of Marijuana in the Workplace” by S. Ballard (MN-CLE
 

The Judge Portraits Identified

Restored portraits await return to wallsAs countless people surf the web every day, it behooves the Law Librarian to actually list the judges of the historic portrait collection on our walls. It’s always exciting for us when a visitor to the library (or our blog) points out a portrait as being of their deceased relative.  So as we near the completed restoration of all the portraits, we want to encourage people with connections and memories to come forward and share them with us.

So, here they are (in alphabetical order):

Charles Bechhoefer (1923-1931)
John W. Boerner (1923-1949)
Hascal Russel Brill (1875-1922)
Kenneth Gray Brill (1929-1954)
George Lincoln Bunn (1897-1911)
Frederick Miles Catlin (1913-1921)
William Daltin Cornish (1890-1893)
Royden Smith Dane (1947-1959)
Frederick N. Dickson (1911-1921)
James J. Egan (1891-1897)
John W. Graff (1959-1974)
Archie L Gingold (1960-1978)
Otis H, Godfrey, Jr.

William Sprigg Hall (1867-1875)
Oscar Hallam (1905-1912)
Hugo O. Hanft (1915-1943)
Charles C. Haupt (1917-1922)
Marshall F. Hurley (1959-1960)
Edwin A. Jaggard (1899-1905)
William Louis Kelly (1887-1923)
Charles D. Kerr (1889-1897)
Olin Baily Lewis (1897-1929)
Gustavus Loevinger (1931-1955)
Carlton F. McNally (1924-1959)
James C. Michael (1915-1946)
Richard D. O’Brien (1923-1939)
Grier Melancthon Orr (1903-1930)
Charles E. Otis (1889-1903)
E.C. Palmer (1858-1864)
John B. Sanborn (1922-1925)
Orlando Simons (1875-1890)
Arthur A. Stewart (1946-1961)
Levi M. Vilas (1889-1891)
Richard Ambrose Walsh (1931-1938)
Howard Wheeler (1930-1931)
Wescott Wilkin (1865-1891)
John Willey Willis (1892-1899)

We are also interested in information related to the artists, including Edward V. Brewer and James L. Artig

 

Cash in pocketIt is perhaps rather ironic that pro se litigants can have more trouble finding affordable help for their criminal defense needs than they might for civil legal needs. This reality exists despite (and perhaps  because of) Gideon vs. Wainright (1963), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that the criminally accused have a right to legal representation. Gideon’s result was our modern public defender system which provides counsel to indigent criminal defendants. And yet many criminal defendants without means represent themselves, due to their failure to qualify for a public defender.  For these self-represented litigants, there exist relatively few self-help resources. (Example:  The extensive Help Topics page in the MNCourts website offers no category for criminal defense.)  This provative article from the Washington and Lee Law Review examines this reality of  economically marginal people slipping through the cracks of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the difficulty in knowing who exactly is indigent. States are on their own to define the “substantial hardship” threshold established by Gideon, and for this they typically rely on the Federal Poverty Guidelines.  See MN Stat 611.17 for Minnesota’s own eligibility criteria for a public defender.

Despite this dearth of help,  one can find the Minnesota Statutes and the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure online. We can also offer some tools at the law library, including treatises on Minnesota criminal law and free access to Westlaw Next.  Some information is also available through the Second Judicial District Criminal and Traffic section of the Courts website.  There are some local resources for those specifically seeking criminal legal advice.  Criminal Defense Services, Inc. exists exclusively to assist Ramsey County residents facing misdemeanor or low-level felony charges.  See their website for information on their availability at Ramsey County arraignments for those who do not qualify for public defender representation.  Neighborhood Justice Center similarly provides criminal defense services to low-income and indigent people in the East Metro, with focus on communities of color.  (Please note that both of the above screen potential clients with income-eligibility guidelines.)  And don’t underestimate the thirty-dollar, thirty-minute consultation available through the Ramsey County Bar Association, which might be just enough advice to let you know what your options really are.

 

 

 

Called to Bear Witness

courtroom witness standAn article in last week’s Pioneer Press covering the Minneapolis Black Lives Matter protests describes the work of a core element of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG). In particular, it highlighted the role of their legal observers, whose purpose is to “monitor law enforcement and gather evidence.” To do this, they are instructed to watch the police officers, take detailed notes, and avoid distractions. They also take documentation in cases of arrests.  They are also under strict instruction to avoid distractions, discussions, and especially arguments. (A legal observer in a jail cell is basically useless.)

This spotlight on the legal observers illustrate the fact that the best legal weapons are sometimes not lawyers or law books, but eyes and ears. The NLG knows that the strength of any case might boil down to its witnesses and the evidence they collect. Check out this NLG Legal Observer Training Manual.  Note that it presents tools that anyone might find useful if they need to document a brewing situation which might wind up in court. In particular, see the detailed instructions for taking notes.

The need for a certain kind of “legal observer” certainly isn’t limited to protests. Situations with potential legal ramifications that need documentation might be taking place in your home, community, or workplace. Of course, you may never intend to be a witness and suddenly find yourself in a situation where you might become one (or already have). Nowhere is this more true than for crime victims.  The NLG legal observer tools and guidelines might prove useful for your own needs.  If you ultimately wind up being called to court as a witness, you know that you must speak clearly, simply, and truthfully on the stand.  There are additional guides available in case you want to consult something else to prepare, including this one from the Wadena County Attorney’s office and another from Stearns County.  For more information on how to be a good witness, check out this guide from FindLaw.com.  If you are testifying in federal court, check out this guide from the U.S. District Court of Minnesota.

Don’t be nervous!  Our justice system depends on you!

 
Pierce Butler

Pierce Butler in an 1899 Ramsey County Bar Association poster

This week marks the anniversary of the passing of one of Minnesota’s most overlooked historical legal figures. He was none other than the first U.S. Supreme Court Justice from Minnesota, who spent his early professional years prominently in the Saint Paul legal community.

Pierce Butler was born in a log cabin in Waterford, Minnesota (about 35 miles south of Saint Paul) to Irish Potato Famine immigrant parents. He was the sixth of nine children. Schooled in Latin and German by his father, young Pierce began teaching at the county school when he was fifteen. He attended high school at Carleton College, and then enrolled in the regular academic program at Carleton after being rejected for admission by West Point. Upon graduation Butler took a legal apprenticeship with the firm of Pinch & Twohy of St. Paul, in lieu of enrolling in law school. (He was one of the last lawyers to be trained in the old tradition of “reading law.”) He was admitted to the bar in 1888. He married Annie M. Cronin (sister-in-law of his boss) in 1891. He and Annie eventually had eight children.

Butler served as assistant Ramsey County Attorney under Thomas O’Brien, and was elected Ramsey County Attorney himself in 1892. After serving two terms, he returned to private practice in Saint Paul in 1896. He was fond of debates with his friend (and later Judge) Frederick Dickson. Butler was an ardent backer of economic property rights and opponent of government intervention.  He had an adversarial courtroom style that earned him the name “Fierce Butler,” for he was known to grind witnesses on the stand to bits. In 1908, Butler was elected President of the Minnesota State Bar Association.  He represented numerous railroads before the U.S. Supreme Court (including those held by James J. Hill). He also became close friends with William Howard Taft as the latter was appointed to the Supreme Court. Through Taft’s influence, Butler himself was nominated for the United States Supreme Court by President Warren Harding in 1922. Butler had served on the Board of Regents at the University of Minnesota, and his  opposition to “radical” and “disloyal” professors made him a controversial Supreme Court nominee, with both progressive groups and the Ku Klux Klan opposing his nomination. (He was Catholic.)  Butler was nonetheless confirmed by the Senate on January 2, 1923.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Butler  continued to be an ardent supporter of property rights, and a fierce opponent of government search and seizure where criminal defendants were concerned. (See his dissent from the opinion expressed in Olmstead v. United States which upheld federal wiretapping of telephone lines.) Butler was nicknamed one of the conservative “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” for his unwavering opposition of FDR’s New Deal policies.  Predictably he became a prolific dissenter as the Court grew more liberal, dissenting in 73 cases from 1937 to 1939He died on November 16, 1939 at the age of seventy three.

Forgive yourself if you were unaware of Butler’s legacy, which is rather elusive.  His opinions tended to be on technical areas of law such as utilities regulation and taxation, which don’t generate the same level of public interest as other areas of law.  He had many friends, but was a private person who eschewed public engagement. (Upon his deathbed, he ordered his clerk to destroy anything Court related, other than published opinions.)  Much of this information here can be found in an excellent look at Butler’s life written by David R. Stras and published in the Vanderbilt Law Review in 2009.  (This article can be a delicious history read for your Thanksgiving break!)