HCBA Logo
Hennepin County
Bar Association
Judge Mabley



 

Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

 

Judge Daniel H. Mabley

     
Born:   1948
     
Education:   1974  JD  University of Minnesota Law School
1971  BA  Carleton College
     
Recent Career:   1992  Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1980-1992  Hennepin County Attorney's Office.
                   Principal Attorney/Acting Chief, Adult      
                   Prosecution Division (1991);  
                   Senior Attorney/Trial Team Supervisor (1989)
1978  Dakota County Attorney's Office
1975  St. Paul City Attorney's Office
1974  Private Practice
     
Elevated to Bench:   Appointed by Governor Arne Carlson in 1992.
Elected in 1994, 2000, and 2006.
     
Previous Assignments:  

10/1992 to 1/1993

Criminal

2/1993 to 5/1996

Civil Block and Criminal

7/1996 to 6/2000

Chief Judge

7/2000 to 5/2005

Criminal

11/2002 to 8/2003 Judge Mabley was the first of four American jurists selected by the United Nations to serve as an international judge in Kosovo.  He presided in cases involving war crimes, organized crime, and ethnic disputes.  During this assignment, Judge Mabley was on unpaid leave from his duties in Hennepin County.
5/2005 to 3/2007 Family Court
4/2007 to Present Criminal (Felony Block)
     
Current Assignments:

  Criminal (Felony Block)

   

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

     
     
     
     
     
 

 


Read Profile from

 

Published in
Nov/Dec 1992

 

 

 

  Civil Block
  Criminal Block
   
 
  The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice 

Back to Top

 

1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?
I request ONE courtesy copy of each party's Legal Memorandum (and nothing else).
Deliver courtesy copies to my chambers at least 3 days before the hearing.



2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
Absent a request from counsel, hearings that do not involve live testimony and phone conferences will be recorded by tape recorder, rather than by a court reporter.
The use of audio-visual presentation aids is encouraged.
Attorneys should direct all remarks and arguments to the court, not each other.



3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
All or most discovery should have been completed.
Attorneys should either have or have access to immediate authority to settle the case.



4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
As early as possible after the case is filed. Possible exceptions are when there will be a potentially dispositive Summary Judgment motion or when significant discovery has not yet been exchanged.


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.?)
Primarily during the ADR process or at the Pretrial Conference (Note: I do not schedule Pretrial Conferences unless requested to do so by one of the parties).


6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiations?
Yes (see # 3 above).


7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
I expect that most discovery disputes can and will be resolved by the parties without court involvement.  If the parties are unable to resolve a SERIOUS and IMPORTANT discovery dispute, I welcome appropriate motions, including phone motions (even during a deposition).


8. Do you conduct hearings and motions by phone? If so, please describe the procedure you would like attorneys to use to do so, including how testimony is to be transcribed and who puts the teleconference together.
Yes, especially in discovery disputes or when one of the attorneys is not in the Twin Cities.
If a motion is scheduled for phone conference, attorneys should not appear in person at the courthouse.


9. 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)?
Electronic devices should be on "silent". Passing notes and quiet conversation at counsel table is permitted as long as it is not disruptive of the proceedings. Water is permitted at counsel table. I enforce the Rules of Decorum (see Civil Trial Notebook in the General Rules of Practice).


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 frequently imposed monetary or evidentiary sanctions and have infrequently reported attorneys to the lawyers board for unethical behavior. The circumstances varied.


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?
I will accept ex parte communications with respect to procedural, scheduling, or housekeeping matters. I will also do so with respect to substantive matters if a party is in default, has without excuse failed to appear at a noticed hearing, or has knowingly waived their appearance.


12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?
I am conservative in granting continuances. Good cause must be shown. (Examples include: family medical emergencies, deaths, unexpected witness unavailability).

Do not assume that I will grant a continuance because the parties are in agreement. (Therefore, for example, subpoenaed witnesses should not be released without court approval when the opponent agrees to your continuance.)


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?
Yes. I will inform attorneys if I have NOT read the submissions.


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 attorneys use oral argument to frame their argument in an entirely different way than they did in their written submissions.

Attorneys should address the legal issues at hand, not make personal attacks on their opponents.
If you don't know the answer to a question I ask, admit it. Don't guess.
Do not assume that I am as knowledgeable about your legal specialty as you are.


15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
I follow the jury selection recommendations of the Jury Task Force Report.
I prefer the civil method of jury selection (even in criminal cases).
I prefer to give both substantive and procedural instructions to the jury before opening statement.
I prefer to decide all pretrial issues before the jury panel is summoned to the courtroom. This includes deciding all known or anticipated motions in limine, as well as jury instructions and verdict forms.
I expect counsel to respect the jury's time by insuring that witnesses are available.

Back to Top

 
  The Judge's Criminal Courtroom Procedures and Advice 

Back to Top

1. What do you see as the bench’s role in settlement at the pretrial stage?
Judges should be familiar enough with the case to comment on the relative strength of the parties’ positions and to suggest creative ways for the parties to reach an agreement.


2. When a matter is assigned to you for trial, do you attempt to facilitate settlement before beginning trial?
I do attempt to facilitate settlement but will not recommend settlement terms more generous position than were offered at the pretrial conference (although the parties are free to do so).


3. When in trial, what hours do you normally use for the trial itself (including breaks and lunch recesses)?
Typically a court day is from 9am to noon and from 1:30 to 4:30 pm, with one 20 minute break during each session. Currently (as of January, 2010), I do hold trial on Mondays, the day I schedule most of my miscellaneous appearances. Also I schedule miscellaneous appearances at 8:45 am and 1:15 pm every day.
To the extent reasonably possible, I expect to fully use each court day and therefore attorneys need to be prepared to do so also.



4. What policies do you have concerning weapons, firearms and ammunition exhibits in the courtroom?
They must be disabled in advance.
 

 

5. What policies do you have concerning drugs and other sensitive exhibits in the courtroom?
They must be securely packaged. They will not be sent into the jury room during deliberations unless there is a particular reason to do so. All exhibits should be premarked.

 

6. When do you discuss proposed jury instructions with attorneys?
These discussions occur before a jury panel is brought to the courtroom because I give most of my jury instructions before opening statements. 

 

7. What are your policies concerning jury sequestration?
Unless there is a motion or request by a party, I generally do not sequester. Exceptionally, I may sequester during deliberations in particularly serious or lengthy trials. 


8. Do you have any specific policies or practices concerning pre-sentence investigations or sentencing?
On the day of the sentencing hearing, I do not invite the attorneys back into chambers for preliminary discussions. Attorneys should be prepared to make their comments and requests in open court. 


9. How do you conduct jury selection?
I prefer the civil method. I handle a significant portion of the questioning myself. I follow the recommendations of the 2001 Jury Task Force Report. Thus I do not permit the voir dire process to be used to educate jurors about principles of law or about fact issues in the case.                                  

Back to Top

   
  Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer  (62:2:18)  
   

Dan Mabley
Originally published in the November/December 1992 issue.
Author: Thomas L. Johnson

What do the Minnesota Judicial Merit Commission and central casting have in common? Both could easily recommend Dan Mabley for a "position" as a judge.

In fact, Dan Mabley is the newly appointed Hennepin County district court judge. And he was recommended by the Merit Commission, which must have thought he had devoted his career to fulfilling the Commission’s evaluation criteria. Not so, but with the same result: Dan Mabley is eminently qualified to be a judge. And, if you were to consult the folks at central casting, they would also say he is qualified, albeit for different reasons.

Let’s start with the Commission’s criteria. By statute, the Commission is required to examine such factors as an applicant’s legal knowledge, ability and experience, diligence, integrity and judicial temperament. Dan matches up about as well as possible.

Legal Knowledge/Education: Dan graduated cum laude from Carleton College with a degree in government and international relations. It was at Carleton that his interest in law school was piqued by a course in constitutional law. Dan followed through, obtaining a juris doctor from the University of Minnesota in 1974.

By 1981 Dan was back at school, but this time as an adjunct professor in trial advocacy at William Mitchell College of Law. Dan continues to teach and receives outstanding reviews from his students and from Jon Sonsteng, a well-known professor of trial skills at the college. Jon describes Dan as a "wonderful teacher who shares his knowledge in a gentle, thoughtful manner that helps students develop to their fullest potential."

Ability and Experience: Dan’s legal career includes a short stint in a small general practice law firm, and three different public law offices. Dan worked for three years in the St. Paul City Attorney’s office prosecuting misdemeanors. He then moved to the Dakota County Attorney’s office where he started that office’s economic crime prosecution program in addition to handling a regular felony case load.

In 1981 Dan was hired by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office. His first assignment was to develop an arson prosecution program. He did, with great success. An Arson Investigation and Prosecution Manual, written by Dan, was distributed widely throughout the state. During this time Dan also handled many successful arson prosecutions, with his conviction of Marjorie Caldwell Hagen being viewed as a masterful achievement. The combination of the Manual and successful prosecutions put Dan on the speaker’s circuit both locally and nationally: he is, to this day, recognized as a national expert on arson.

In 1991 Dan was appointed chief of the criminal division in the Hennepin County Attorney’s office and held that position until his judicial appointment. It "capped" Dan’s extraordinarily successful career as a prosecutor.

Diligence: Dan’s many successes prosecuting white-collar crime is a testament to his diligence. But perhaps the best illustration of this characteristic is Dan’s successful prosecution of Leonard Richards. Mr. Richards is accused of murdering his half-sister, Mae Wilson, as part of a colossal insurance fraud scheme. He has also been convicted, twice, of murdering his lawyer, Robert Stratton. Dan handled the re-trial in the Stratton case with Leonard Richards representing himself. The trial lasted five months, and involved hundreds of exhibits and endless verbal outbursts by Mr. Richards. But Dan persevered. The jury returned a guilty verdict after a very short deliberation.

Integrity and Judicial Temperament: No one describes Dan’s temperament and integrity in other than glowing terms. Perhaps, though, Tom Frost’s description captures it best: "Dan is incredibly patient, as perhaps best exemplified by the Leonard Richards trial. With respect to his personal integrity, it is never an issue. Dan brings absolute integrity to everything he does." (Tom Frost is the former head of the criminal division in the Hennepin County Attorney’s office and is now the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety.)

It should now be clear why the Judicial Selection Commission recommended Dan Mabley for a judgeship. But how does central casting fit in?

Dan Mabley is not an actor, nor has he any plans to become one. He has, however, extensive experience as a model, often appearing in advertisements as a doctor or as an attorney, and in one advertisement for malpractice insurance, as both!

Dan’s talent in front of a camera would get central casting’s attention. So, too, would his talents outside the courtroom. We all know that not every judge is an avid golfer or tennis player; it’s just that central casting believes this to be true. But Dan Mabley needs no stand-in to act the part of a tennis-playing judge. Until recently, he carried a sectional ranking in the Norwest section of the U.S. Tennis Association. In addition, to cool off after five months in court with Leonard Richards, Dan took up wind-surfing and, predictably enough, he is now a highly skilled wind-surfer. Central casting would go crazy!

One might think that Dan Mabley would have a large ego. Not true. Dan’s demeanor is characterized by a disarming shyness, a shyness that he once thought would keep him out of the courtroom. In fact, his law school experience was marked by "a desire to hide under the closest desk; I certainly knew I didn’t want to be called upon."

Dan married Cindi Claypatch-Mabley in 1988. Without realizing it, Dan had been helping to keep Cindi "in business" before they ever met. Cindi is a chemical dependency counselor, and some of the defendants that Dan convicted were referred to Cindi for counseling. Dan has a son, Donnie, who is 14.

As with his many professional successes, Dan attributes his marriage to Cindi as "a matter of luck." Yet luck was not with Dan the week of his wedding, when an advertisement for comforters came out in several local and national magazines. The advertisement showed Dan in bed with a woman model and two children. The incident demonstrated Dan’s capacity to make a quick, judicial-like decision: He ended his modeling career immediately!

A couple of closing notes by the author. I worked with Dan Mabley for over ten years. I know him well. Dan is many things: intelligent, innovative and deeply committed to public service. But above all else, he is a decent human being who treats everyone he meets with kindness and respect. There should be no doubt that he will make an excellent judge.

Back to Top

 

   

Back to Top

 
   
   

   

Legal Notice

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