HCBA Logo
Hennepin County
Bar Association
Judge DuFresne



 

Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

 

Judge Mary Steenson DuFresne
 Formally Judge Mary Steenson

     
Born:   1945
     
Education:   1979  JD  William Mitchell College of Law
1967  BS  University of Wisconsin
     
Recent Career:   1997  Judge, Fourth Judicial District
1983-1996  Attorney, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A.
1979-1983  Assistant State Public Defender
     
Elevated to Bench:   Elected in 1996, 2002 and 2008.
     
Previous Assignments:  

1/1997 to 12/1997

Criminal

1/1998 to 5/2000

Family (Presiding Judge 1999-2000)

6/2000 to 12/2005 Civil Block and Criminal

1/2006 to 1/2008

Family

2/2008 to Present

Civil and Criminal

     
Current Assignments:   Civil and Criminal
     
More information on this Judge is available from the District Court Website
 
 
 
  The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice  

1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?
Motions can be scheduled with my clerks for any day, Monday through Friday, at 9:00 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. Do not expect documents filed through civil filing to be available to the Court by the day of the hearing. One courtesy copy of each document filed should be provided to chambers at least two days before the hearing. No post hearing documents will be received without permission from the Court.


2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
The hearings will begin promptly. Each side is allowed up to 15 minutes unless prior permission for additional time is obtained. The Court has other matters scheduled to follow the motion hearing. All motions will be on the record either by a court reporter in the courtroom or the court monitoring system.


3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
Because we require mediation in most civil cases, we generally do not set pretrial conferences unless requested by counsel. If a pretrial is held, the parties, counsel and insurance representatives with full settlement authority must be present.


4. At what point do you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
Mediation is included in our scheduling orders. If another form of ADR is preferred, counsel must specifically request it from the Court.


5. At what point, if any, do you encourage the parties to settle or to exchange settlement offers/demand? Does that vary by type of case (personal injury, family, criminal, etc?
Settlement discussions are strongly encouraged at all stages of the proceedings, in all types of cases. Pursuant to Rule 68, written offers must be exchanged at least 10 days before trial. If counsel think a settlement conference would be beneficial, one can be scheduled through my clerks.


6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiation?
Yes.
 

 

7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
No discovery motions will be scheduled without a telephone conference. The parties must submit papers explaining the dispute and meet and confer prior to the conference call. If the parties do not reach a resolution during the conference call, the Court will announce its decision and provide a written order if requested. Generally, deposition objections should be done on the record and ruled upon later by the Court, if necessary. If parties have multiple discovery disputes, the Court may appoint a Special Master at the parties’ expense. The Court will not accept letters regarding discovery problems or cc’s on letters between counsel regarding discovery.


8. Do you have any preferences for courtroom decorum (including but not limited to cell phones, pagers, passing notes, communicating with others at counsel table, water/beverages at counsel table, approaching the witness, courtroom attire)?
Counsel should follow the Rules of Decorum (Rule 2, General Rules of Practice). Cell phones and pagers must be turned off. Laptops may be used, but silently. Water and coffee may be present at counsel table. Pitchers of water shall no longer be provided to counsel because of budget problems.


9. With respect to oral argument, do you prefer an attorney to assume you have read the supporting memorandum and exhibits and not reiterate written material?
Yes, unless the Court notifies counsel it has not reviewed the submitted material.


10. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?
Arguments should be organized and non-repetitive. Counsel should be flexible to adjust his or her argument to the concerns expressed by the Court or to respond to issues raised by the opposing side. If the Court tells counsel that they have limited time to continue, they should respect that request and hit only the salient issues.


11. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
Counsel should abide by the timelines in the Order for Trial issued by the Court regarding submissions. Counsel has previously indicated the expected length of the trial; if that needs to be adjusted, counsel should notify the Court as soon as possible. Parties are expected to pre-mark their exhibits. Documentary exhibits should be presented in a three-ring notebook, one for the witness, one for opposing counsel, one for the Court, and one for the clerk. Any motions in limine or discussions regarding issues developing during trial should be heard during breaks so that the jury will not be kept waiting. Voir dire will be started by the Court with follow-up questions by counsel. It is generally not on the record.
 
 

 


Read Profile from

 

Published in
March 1997

 

 

 

   
   
 
  The Judge's Criminal Courtroom Procedures and Advice  

1. What are your expectations of attorneys (both defense and state) at arraignment?
Be on time and prepared to schedule a pretrial date.
 
 
2. What do you see as the bench’s role in settlement at the pretrial stage?
The Court is somewhat involved in discussing possible settlement, but will not forcefully propose possible pleas so as not to run afoul of appellate guidelines.
 
3. If so, what limitations do you place on ex parte contacts with your staff?
There should be no ex parte contact regarding substantive matters involving either the Court or its staff. Ex parte contact is allowed regarding scheduling or other administrative matters, with the understanding that the other side will be notified.
 
 
4. When a matter is assigned to you for trial, do you attempt to facilitate settlement before beginning trial?
See Answer to Question 2. The Court will generally schedule a status conference shortly before trial at which settlement may be discussed.
 
 
5. When in trial, what hours do you normally use for the trial itself (including breaks and lunch recesses)?
Generally, trials are conducted between 9:00 and noon with a 20-minute break in the morning and 1:30 and 4:30 with a 20-minute break in the afternoon. The 20-minute break is required by the Supreme Court for the benefit of court reporters. It also allows jurors and others enough time to deal with security. Trials are sometimes necessarily delayed by motions on other matters.
 
 
6. What policies do you have concerning weapons, firearms and ammunition exhibits in the courtroom?
Gunlocks will be used. Ammunition must be bagged and kept separate from the weapon. All weapons will be handled safely. The clerk will take custody of such exhibits once they are received into evidence.
 
 
7. What policies do you have concerning drugs and other sensitive exhibits in the courtroom?
Drugs and other hazardous materials must be in sealed containers. The clerk will take custody of such exhibits once they are received into evidence.
 
 
8. Do you have any other specific policies concerning exhibits?
Exhibits should be marked before trial and shared with opposing counsel. Documentary evidence should be in three-ring binders, one for the witness, one for opposing counsel, one for the Court and one for the law clerk.
 
 
9. When do you discuss proposed jury instructions with attorneys?
Counsel must submit proposed jury instructions before trial and be prepared to discuss them during trial so that they will be prepared when the defense rests.
 
 
10. What are your policies concerning jury sequestration?
A jury will generally not be sequestered unless unusual circumstances are present and requested by counsel.
 
 
11. Do you have any specific policies or practices concerning pre-sentence investigations or sentencing?
PSIs are used if required by statute or deemed helpful to the Court. They would generally be required in felony sentencing or in sentencing of third-degree or higher DWIs or domestic abuse cases.

 
   
  Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer  (66:7:22)  
   

Mary Steenson DuFresne (Mary Steenson at time of publication).
Originally published in the March 1997 issue.
Author: Charles E. Lundberg

Mary E. Steenson comes to Hennepin County District Court with an range of legal experience that is as deep as it is wide. Rarely has a new Hennepin County judge brought to the bench such extensive expertise in both the civil and criminal arenas.

For the past 13 years, Mary has been a trial lawyer with the firm of Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., handling a wide variety of professional liability, employment, and other civil cases in the state and federal courts. She is one of only a few women who have been certified as a civil trial specialist and inducted into the Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers of Minnesota.

Mary’s civil trial experience follows substantial experience as a criminal lawyer. For several years before she joined the Bassford firm, Mary was an assistant state public defender for the state of Minnesota, arguing cases before the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Mary was born in Champaign, Ill., and lived in Whitefish Bay, Wis., and Brantford, Ontario, for several years before her family settled in Milwaukee. She went to college at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where she graduated in 1967 with a degree in English. She then worked for several years as a writer-editor for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and as an administrative assistant for Westinghouse Learning Corporation. After starting a family, Mary entered William Mitchell College of Law in 1975. She graduated cum laude in 1979.

During law school, Mary worked as a law clerk for C. Paul Jones in the Minnesota Public Defender’s Office and started as a lawyer in that office upon graduation in 1979. Paul Jones has nothing but praise for Mary’s work at the public defender’s office. "Mary was one of the most reliable lawyers I have ever worked with. She was always prepared, took on any legal task that had to be done, and always did superb work with a smile and an outgoing personality," Jones said." The public in general and the lawyers in Hennepin County are very fortunate to have such a quality person on the bench."

During her years as an appellate public defender, Mary also taught law school, leading the criminal Appeals Clinic at William Mitchell. During that time, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were established, and the small public defender’s office handled thousands of resentencing hearings of inmates incarcerated in the state’s correction facilities. Mary interviewed inmates at the prisons and handled parole revocation hearings.

In 1983, Mary joined the Bassford firm and started working exclusively in the civil trial arena. She became a partner in 1988. She has tried all types of cases, with a primary emphasis in professional liability and employment law. She has had a special interest in sexual harassment law, having successfully tried several harassment cases to verdict.

Mary has served on several committees and in other capacities during her years of practice, including the Hennepin County Bar Association Ethics and Diversity Committees. She is a member of Minnesota Women Lawyers, the Douglas Amdahl Inn of Court, and the Academy of Certified Trial Lawyers of Minnesota.

Mary is very proud of her children – Molly (25), Andy(22), and Ben (19). Molly lives in San Francisco where she works as a producer for the Internet. Andy and Ben attend college in the Twin Cities.

A couple of years ago, Mary began thinking about the possibility of a judicial role. She was attracted to the opportunity to provide public service in the law, and believed that her trial experience and background in both civil and criminal law qualified her to be a judge.

Mary’s campaign in the 1996 primary and general elections was well received by the community. The Star Tribune lauded her candidacy: "Steenson’s intellectual power and her familiarity with complex civil litigation could prove indispensable to the court." Running a countywide election campaign is a daunting task; Mary learned how difficult it is to reach the voters in this most populated county. She won the election decisively, however, defeating the incumbent judge 56 percent to 44 percent.

Her partners and associates at the Bassford firm have decidedly mixed feelings about Mary’s election to the bench. They hate to lose a partner of Mary’s considerable talents and will miss the daily contact with a good friend and comrade. On the other hand, as trial lawyers, they are pleased to see such a formidable lawyer join the Hennepin County court – even if they will likely never be able to appear before her themselves.

Greer Lockhart, Mary’s senior partner, put it this way: "Mary is an outstanding trial lawyer. She is very bright, but she does not carry the burden of a big ego, and she is thoughtful and considerate of everyone. We are sorry to lose her, but the community is gaining an outstanding judge." Lynn Truesdell, another of Mary’s partners, echoed those sentiments: "Mary brings to the bench that indispensable combination of courtesy, good humor, and intellect so characteristic of, and so much respected in, the very best judges. We let her go reluctantly but confidently. We will miss her. Our law firm’s loss is Hennepin County’s considerable gain."

Mary’s election has been well received by her new colleagues on the Hennepin County bench. Judge Pamela Alexander predicted that Mary "will be a fabulous judge. She is extremely well qualified." Judge Robert Schiefelbein made the point a little differently, comparing Mary with the late Judge Susanne Sedgwick, the first woman ever to serve on the Hennepin County District Court. "I think Mary is a worthy successor to Sue Sedgwick, whom we all admired and who was a great judge." Judge Schiefelbein – who is himself retiring from office this year – arranged for Mary to be sworn in to office in Judge Sedgwick’s judicial robes. Judge Steenson’s response to this touching gesture was characteristic of her approach to her new role: "I just hope I can prove myself worthy of this significant honor."

Back to Top

 

   

Back to Top

 
   
   

   

Legal Notice

Hennepin County Bar Association.   600 Nicollet Mall #390,Minneapolis, MN 55402.   Phone: 612-752-6600.