Hennepin County Bar Association

Hennepin County
Bar Association

Judge Karasov

Meet the Judges How District Court Works Judicial Elections

Judge Patricia Kerr Karasov

Born:

1951

Education:

1983 JD William Mitchell College of Law
1974 BFA University of Minnesota

Recent Career:

1995 Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1985 Assistant Hennepin County Attorney
1983 Law Clerk, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office
1982 Law Clerk, Ramsey County Public Defender’s Office
1981-83 Research Assistant, State Public Defender’s Office

Elevated to Bench:

Elected in 1994, 2000 and 2006.

Previous Assignments:

1/1995 to 4/1998	Criminal
5/1998 to 9/1999	Civil Block and Criminal
8/1999 to 12/2000	Juvenile
1/2001 to 2/2007	Civil Block and Criminal
3/2007 to Present	Family

Current Assignments:

Criminal

More information on this Judge is available from the District Court Website


	Read Profile from
	Published in May/June 1995

The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice

Back to Top

1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?

Motions are heard all days of the work week at 9:00 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. One courtesy copy of each party’s legal memorandum should be delivered to the court chambers at least two business days prior to the hearing. Generally, one half hour is set aside for civil motions with 15 minutes allocated to each party. If it is anticipated that more time may be needed, please inform the clerk when scheduling the hearing. Motions are heard in the courtroom with a court reporter. When the matter is a TRO, a hearing will generally be scheduled the same day or the next day with notice to the other side.

2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?

Call if you will be late. Hearings are held formally in the courtroom with a court reporter present. Address your remarks to the court, not opposing counsel. The court expects civility and compliance with the rules of decorum.

3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?

Pretrials will be scheduled only at the request of the parties and generally only after ADR has been unsuccessful. Most, if not all discovery, should be completed. Attorneys should be fully knowledgeable about their case and have full settlement authority. All parties with authority to settle must be present or available by telephone.

4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?

ADR is required on most cases and must be completed prior to the scheduling of a pretrial conference. A deadline for the completion of ADR is generally set four to five months from the issuance of the scheduling order. If the parties are unable to agree on an ADR process and/or neutral within 30 days of the scheduling order, the court will appoint a process and/or a neutral.

5. At what point, if any, do you encourage the parties to settle or to exchange settlement offers/demands? Does that vary by type of case (personal injury, family, criminal, etc?)

Early settlement is always encouraged.

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

See No. 3.

7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?

I believe most discovery disputes should be resolvable by the parties, with issues of relevance and/or admissibility to be determined by the court immediately prior to trial. No discovery dispute may be brought to the attention of the court unless the parties have conferred and made a good faith effort to settle their dispute. The party raising an unresolved discovery issue shall first arrange a telephone conference with the court to determine if the dispute can be resolved without a formal motion. No motion papers or other submissions shall be filed prior to the telephone conference. Only if the telephone conference does not resolve the dispute may a formal motion be scheduled.

Generally, these telephone conferences are not transcribed. I am open to being available for phone conferences, without a reporter, during depositions. On rare occasions, I have arranged for a conference room at the courthouse for the taking of depositions where the deponent is reluctant or hostile and frequent requests for court intervention are anticipated.

8. Do you conduct hearings and motions by phone? If so, please describe the procedures you would like attorneys to use to do so, including how testimony is to be transcribed and who puts the teleconference together?

Generally, other than discovery disputes, I do not conduct hearings or motions by telephone, unless circumstances of emergency or unavailability create the necessity. These rare telephonic hearings would be transcribed by a court reporter.

9. Do you have any preferences for courtroom decorum (including but not limited to cell phones, pages, passing notes, communicating with others at counsel table, water/beverages at counsel table, approaching the witness, courtroom attire)?

All electronic devices must be off in the courtroom. Communications and passing of notes at counsel table is acceptable as long as they are not disruptive. Water pitchers and cups are provided at counsel table. Generally, no children under the age of 17 are permitted in the courtroom while it is in session. Be on time.

Counsel should stand when addressing the court and confine their remarks to the court, rather than to opposing counsel. Counsel should be mindful of the court reporter by speaking clearly and slowly and in the direction of the court reporter. Objections should be stated in one or two words and never argued in front of the jury.

Proper court attire is expected, unless the hearing is an emergency.

10. When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an attorney for unethical behavior?

I have and will impose monetary sanctions to compensate an aggrieved party. So far, no situations have arisen during my judicial career that would justify finding an attorney in contempt and/or reporting an attorney for unethical conduct.

11. Under what circumstances do you accept ex parte communications from counsel? Do you consider an attorney’s communication with your clerk a potential ex parte communication?

Ex parte communications with either of my clerks is permissible for procedural and scheduling issues and other housekeeping matters. In the case of a default, waiver of appearance or no show without excuse, I may engage in ex parte communication on substantive issues with the party present usually on the record. E-mail communications with my clerks are also acceptable as long as all parties are included.

12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?

Trial continuances are rarely granted except in emergency situations, even if the parties are in agreement. I try to accommodate counsels’ schedules by granting requests made in advance for a trial week or day certain. Continuances on motion hearings are generally granted if both parties are in agreement. Also, requests to extend deadlines contained in the scheduling order, including the discovery deadline, are generally approved, especially if the parties are in agreement and the dispositive motion date is still at least 60 days in advance of the trial block.

13. 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?

Usually I have read all the motion papers and supporting memorandum prior to a hearing and will indicate that in court. I will let you know what issues are of particular interest or concern to me. Generally, one half hour is set aside for the entire hearing. When scheduling a hearing, please let my clerk know if you anticipate needing more time for the hearing so we can accommodate your request.

14. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?

I prefer that oral argument be organized, succinct and to the point on the legal issues. I do tend to ask questions – acknowledging that I may not be as knowledgeable about the facts or the legal specialty of the case as the attorneys are.

15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?

Prior to trial, counsel should pre-mark all exhibits with consecutive numbers, provide witness lists, proposed jury instructions and special verdict forms, and a statement of the case to be read to the jury. I prefer to rule on all pretrial issues prior to beginning voir dire. I prefer an informal discussion on how we want voir dire to go and what, if any, questions the attorneys would like me to ask.

Generally, trial, whether a jury or court trial, is held between 9:00 a.m. and noon and 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. with one 20 minute break in the morning and afternoon. If, during the trial, counsel wishes to put certain matters on the record outside the presence of the jury, please alert the court so a time can be arranged so the jury is not left waiting.

The court reporter does not usually report bench conferences. If counsel wishes their arguments to be on the record, I prefer to continue with the trial and put those arguments on the record during a break in the proceeding rather than ask the jury to step out.

16. What are the most common mistakes lawyers make in advocacy before you (written or oral)? What do the best advocates before you have in common?

The best advocates are prepared, on time, display a professional demeanor, are courteous to opposing counsel and respectful of the court and the court’s staff. Personally attacking opposing counsel, failing to acknowledge contrary law, and attempting to mislead the court as to the facts of the case or the applicable law are unacceptable behaviors.

We all, including the court, make mistakes and sometimes our life situations can cause us to become distracted or overwhelmed. Good attorneys and judges take responsibility for their mistakes, including being late, missing new or contrary law, and failing to timely respond.

The Judge's Criminal Courtroom Procedures and Advice

Back to Top

1. What are your expectations of attorneys (both defense and state) at arraignment?

Being on time and knowledgeable about their case.

2. What do you see as the bench’s role in settlement at the pretrial stage?

I encourage settlement and suggest possible negotiations based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. If so, what limitations do you place on ex parte contacts with your staff?

Ex parte contacts with my staff are limited to procedural or scheduling issues. E-mail communications must be to all parties.

4. When a matter is assigned to you for trial, do you attempt to facilitate settlement before beginning trial?

Absolutely. I always encourage the parties to reach a fair negotiation if possible.

5. When in trial, what hours do you normally use for the trial itself (including breaks and lunch recesses)?

Generally, 9:00 to noon and 1:30 to 4:30 with a 20 minute break in the morning and afternoon. Children under 17 are generally not allowed in the courtroom during the proceedings. Anyone else engaging in disruptive behavior will be asked to leave the courtroom.

6. What policies do you have concerning weapons, firearms and ammunition exhibits in the courtroom?

All weapons must be contained in locked boxes generally provided by the Sheriff’s Office. During deliberations, firearms and ammunition are never allowed to go into the deliberation room together.

7. What policies do you have concerning drugs and other sensitive exhibits in the courtroom?

Real drugs are illustrative exhibits only and are not entered as exhibits to go to the deliberation room. Exhibits containing bodily fluids are to be encased in clear plastic with a bio-hazard sticker. If, given the nature of the case, an exhibit containing bodily fluids must be handled by the jurors during deliberations, plastic gloves are provided and an instruction is given by the court.

8. Do you have any other specific policies concerning exhibits?

No exhibits are to be displayed or shown to a witness in front of the jury unless the court has given approval by prior ruling.

9. When do you discuss proposed jury instructions with attorneys?

Usually after all of the evidence has been presented.

10. What are your policies concerning jury sequestration?

Generally, I do not sequester criminal juries unless there are concerns regarding media attention.

11. Do you have any specific policies or practices concerning pre-sentence investigations or sentencing?

I prefer pre-sentence investigations before I commit to a particular sentence. At sentencing, victims and/or appropriate family members may orally or in writing present victim impact statements. These comments are to be addressed to the court, not the defendant.

Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (64:5:17)

Patricia Kerr Karasov
Originally published in the May/June 1995 issue.
Author: Joseph W. Anthony

To be considered first-rate, a judge should be fair and respectful and demonstrate a willingness to work hard to understand and apply the law to the facts of each case. Using that standard, Patricia Kerr Karasov, recently elected Hennepin County District Court judge, will be a first-rate judge. She is even-tempered, a quick study, and patient and dedicated enough to educate herself in unfamiliar areas. Judge Karasov will be a judge before whom lawyers in this county will appreciate appearing.

Born and raised in Lansing, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, she moved to Minneapolis with her parents at the age of 17. She attended the University of Minnesota and earned a B.A. as an art major in 1974. Given the shortage of jobs for art majors with a specialty in metal casting, she worked in a photography business and as a waitress, a dog groomer, and an AFDC intake worker. One of life’s lessons that Judge Karasov quickly learned was that women with college degrees in the 1970s were earning incomes that placed them at or near the poverty level. By comparison, her male counterparts with high school degrees were earning over twice as much for performing the same work. While her jobs brought her into contact with regular people on a daily basis, they did not enable her to earn enough to support herself and her daughter.

Determined to improve the quality of her life, Judge Karasov enrolled in William Mitchell College of Law in 1981. While attending William Mitchell, she worked as a research assistant with the State Public Defender’s Office and as a law clerk with the Ramsey County Public Defender’s Office. In those positions, she provided services related to the representation of criminal defendants in municipal and district court. She graduated from William Mitchell in 1983 with honors.

After graduation, Judge Karasov joined the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. From 1984 through 1994, she worked as an assistant Hennepin County attorney, a position in which she prosecuted hundreds of cases in the areas of criminal, juvenile, and family law.

From 1987 to 1993, she was assigned to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Adult Prosecution Division. In that position, she had extensive felony jury trial experience. She earned a reputation as an aggressive prosecutor and skilled trial attorney. Peter Connor, one of her supervisors at the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, described her commitment to the practice as follows: "She was hardworking, tenacious, and aggressive about doing the best job she possibly could on behalf of her clients. She was a caring and a strong advocate for victims’ rights."

Judge Karasov combined her skills as a trial attorney with a commitment to public service, which resulted in her making substantial contributions to the development of programs that improved the quality of the criminal justice system. During her 11 years with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, she demonstrated a strong commitment to victims’ rights and worked cooperatively with the juvenile court bench to develop restitution policies and protocol.

While assigned to the Juvenile Prosecution Division from 1985 to 1987, she served as liaison to, and testified before, the Minnesota Legislature in matters relating to juvenile gangs and major offenders. When assigned to the Child Support Division of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, she was instrumental in developing and instituting new office policies and procedures to more aggressively and effectively pursue the collection of child support payments. Mike Freeman, the Hennepin County Attorney, described Judge Karasov as "a very strong advocate who made a big difference in a lot of people’s lives. She did a tremendous job in the adult prosecution and child support areas."

Apart from the contributions she made as a prosecutor, Judge Karasov also has been involved in community activities. She is an advisory board member of the Hmong Mutual Assistance Association, a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, a youth teacher in her synagogue, and a former vice president and current executive board member of AFSCME, Local 2938. She is also a member of Minnesota Women Lawyers, the National Organization of Women, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In 1994, Judge Karasov’s career took a different turn. At that time, she challenged then-sitting Hennepin County District Court Judge Sean Rice in the November elections. Challenging a sitting Hennepin County District Court judge is not something undertaken lightly. Undaunted, Judge Karasov launched a spirited campaign that earned her 58 percent of the vote and a resounding victory.

Judge Karasov was sworn in on Jan. 4, 1995. Having been on the bench only four months, she is still forming a judicial philosophy. There are a number of judges whom she admired as a prosecutor and who demonstrated qualities that she hopes to develop in herself as a judge. Judges Edward Toussaint, Patrick Fitzgerald, Daniel Mabley, and Allen Oleisky are some that she mentioned who demonstrated the grace under pressure, respect for the profession, and a commitment to hard work that she hopes to emulate. Since being on the bench, she has developed a tremendous amount of respect for her colleagues and the services they provide. All of her colleagues have been very supportive and cooperative. The clerks of court and the support staff also have been extremely helpful.

Her goal as a judge is to create the appearance and the reality of fairness. She says, "Persons appearing in my courtroom are entitled to be heard out in an orderly fashion and to be treated respectfully." Judge Karasov is sensitive to the concern that she may be viewed as pro-prosecution, given her years with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. She sees herself as understanding the difference between being an advocate and being a judge. Judge Karasov has one quality that is particularly noteworthy and will serve her well. She described it in her own words as "not knowing everything, but willing to learn as much as I possibly can." Presently, Judge Karasov is assigned to criminal matters, an area where her talents will be well utilized. As she rotates through the system, she will, at some point, be assigned a civil block. When assigned a civil block, Judge Karasov is certain to apply herself with the same dedication and zeal that has typified her work to date.

As a product of the 1960s, Judge Karasov also asks herself broader questions—the kinds of questions that make us all wonder whether what we do for a living has any purpose. "What social value does a lawyer have? What can a judge do about what goes on in this county or this state? Can we do anything to improve the quality of the lives of the people we serve?" She has a social conscience and an awareness of the issues that need to be addressed. Judge Karasov’s commitment to community service makes it clear that she is concerned about and committed enough to these types of questions to make her a credit to the bench.

Judge Karasov has aspirations for herself as a judge. She wants to earn the respect of her colleagues and the trial bar and she intends to continue to serve the community as both a judge and a participant in community affairs. She also has a desire to actively participate in the International Association of Women Judges and aspires to participate in a United Nations tribunal directed towards addressing crimes committed in the course of war in international conflicts.

When not on the bench or participating in community activities, Judge Karasov enjoys spending time with her two daughters, Emily and Danielle, playing golf, coaching and playing softball, and reading historical novels.

Perhaps most of all, Judge Karasov hopes that her accomplishments will be an inspiration to her daughters and to other women. The risks she has taken and her efforts to excel are qualities and characteristics that she hopes to pass on to her daughters. She has told them that "they can do anything in life if they work hard and do not get distracted by the negative things that happen." She has tried to teach them not to shirk their responsibilities or to be afraid to take chances—"you have to be willing to go after what you want in order to be happy."

Judge Karasov has a history of risk taking and excellence. She has overcome obstacles through her courage and perseverance. If her history in the practice of law is any indication, she will be a major contributor to the Hennepin County District Court bench.

Legal Notice

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