Hennepin County Bar Association Presents:
 
A View of the Hennepin County Bench

HCBA Homepage            Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

Judge Pamela G. Alexander

Born:

1952

Education:

1977 JD University of Minnesota Law School
1974 BA Augsburg College

Recent Career:

1986 Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1983 Judge, Hennepin County Municipal Court
1980 Attorney, Hennepin County - Criminal Division
1978 Attorney, Legal Rights Center
1977 Trust Administrator, First Bank
1974  Law Clerk, Neighborhood Justice Center and the
          Legal Rights Center.

Elevated to Bench:

Appointed by Governor Rudy Perpich to Municipal Court in 1983
Became District Court Judge by court merger in 1986.
Elected in 1990, 1996, and 2002.

Previous Assignments:

2/1983 to 3/1988

Criminal/Appeals and Unlawful Detainers

4/1988 to 6/1991

Civil Block and Criminal

7/1991 to 12/1991

Civil Block and Family

1/1992 to 12/1993

Civil Block and Criminal

1/1994 to 2/1995

Criminal

3/1995 to 9/1996

Civil Block and Criminal

10/1996 to 7/2000

Juvenile

8/2000 to present

Civil Block and Criminal

Current Assignments:



Civil Block and Criminal
 

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

Juvenile Court Info. and Individual Judge's Statistics for 2006 -
 
Data provided by Hennepin County District Court. View PDF.


 


Read Profile from

Published in
May/June 1993

 

  The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice                       Back to Top

1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?

All attorneys should follow the scheduling order sent out by my staff.  All motions should be made in writing to the court, with copies to opposing counsel, a hearing date should be arranged with my clerk.


2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
I prefer everything in open court and on the record at the time of hearing, after moving papers have been timely filed.



3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
I expect the trial brief, jury instructions, witness lists and special verdict form at the time of the pre-trial.


4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
A month prior to the dispositive motion deadline.



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.)?
Start to discuss settlement at all stages of the proceedings but definitely before the dispositive motion deadline. This does not apply to criminal cases.


6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiations?
I think the person with settlement authority should be present at the arbitration/mediation, pre-trial and trial.



7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
I prefer to handle all discovery disputes by conference call.


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, the person asking for the conference should make arrangements for the telephonic hearing and I will only handle discovery disputes in this manner, all other hearing should be on the record in open court.


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)?
Follow the rules of the decorum as set out in the district court rules. Use of electronic devices in court is prohibited unless a specific part of the trial.



10. When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an attorney for unethical behavior?
I will use all the rules available to the court to maintain order and pursue justice.



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?
Only in emergency hearing sanctioned by the rules. All other ex parte communications are prohibited.



12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?
Continuances are rarely given and only with good cause shown.



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?
All attorneys should assume that the papers have been reviewed unless told otherwise by the Court and do not repeat what has been submitted.


14. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?
I consider good oral argument as a response to the opposing views discussed and the time allotted will be one hour or less unless otherwise specified by my clerk.



15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
During Jury trials I expect the attorneys, parties and witnesses to be timely, any discussions outside of the hearing of the jury must be done at breaks or prior to the jury's arrival. Jury Selection should be according to the rules.

Back to Top

 
  Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer  (62:5:11)

Pamela G. Alexander
Originally published in the May/June 1993 issue.
Author: Judge Michael Davis

Portions of this profile were redacted on request of the Judge.

It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to profile Judge Pamela Alexander for The Hennepin Lawyer. I have known Judge Alexander over 20 years, and it is clear to me she is one gifted individual. She has been a pioneer for African- Americans and women in the legal profession. And recently Sen. Paul Wellstone honored Judge Alexander by submitting her name to President Clinton for appointment to the U.S. District Court.

Pamela Alexander was born and raised in south Minneapolis. Her father, a bus driver, and her mother, a homemaker, have six children of which Judge Alexander is the youngest. Judge Alexander, the first in her family to go to college, graduated from Augsburg College (cum laude) in 1974. She decided to become a lawyer when she was 12 years old, after she had to testify at a rape trial in which her best friend was the victim. It seemed to her everyone always complained about their lawyer, so she wanted to become a lawyer who made a difference; one who would explain to clients their legal rights. She has since devoted her career to working toward equality and justice for all people regardless of race, gender, religion, or economic status.

Judge Alexander received her J.D. in 1977 from the University of Minnesota Law School. While in law school, she clerked for the Legal Rights Center. After receiving her law degree, Judge Alexander worked in the Corporate Trust Division at First Bank Minneapolis as a trust administrator. She became a criminal defense attorney in October 1978 with the Legal Rights Center, where she defended a variety of major criminal cases for indigent minority defendants. I worked with Judge Alexander at the Legal Rights Center and I saw, first hand, her dedication in ensuring each client received the highest quality legal representation. In April 1981, Judge Alexander became the first African-American female prosecutor at the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office where she specialized in prosecuting sexual assault cases.

Then in 1983, Alexander became the first African-American female, as well as the youngest, judge in Hennepin County. Now, Judge Alexander has become the first African-American female to be nominated to the U.S. District Court in Minnesota. Without question, she will be an excellent addition to the federal bench as she has demonstrated reverence for all civil liberties and sensitivities of all people who have come before her in district court. She has also shown great courage by making the right decisions, even though unpopular, in the interests of justice.

During her 10 years on the Hennepin County bench, Judge Alexander has handled a number of high-profile cases, such as a case involving the constitutionality of Minnesota’s sodomy law and a major anti-abortion protest case. However, Judge Alexander’s most publicized case was that of State v. Russell, in which she struck down a state statute imposing disparate penalties for crack and powder cocaine, ruling the law had a racially discriminatory impact in violation of the Minnesota Constitution. In her opinion, Judge Alexander stated:

There has been a recent outcry in this country for control of drugs. This concern has led to a rash of new laws with tough penalties designed [to] aid in this "war." While the concern of the nation is justified, the reactionary impulses that have come from the legislatures, in this case the Minnesota legislature, do not necessarily get to the root of the problem. These actions must be kept in perspective and shouldn’t be instituted at the expense of basic civil rights . . . There is no justifiable reason to uphold a statute which results in such unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The constitution is designed to prevent this type of injustice.

Subsequently, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld her decision in State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 866 (Minn 1991). The case has also gained national attention for it has been the subject, or has been discussed, in numerous publications such as the report of the ABA Task Force on Minorities and the Justice System entitled "Achieving Justice in a Diverse America"; Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby by Stephen Carter; and a series of articles that will appear in the Harvard Law Review authored by Charles Ogeltree.

Her record shows that she is devoted to working toward equality and justice. Not only has she effectively combatted racial discrimination in drug sentencing, she has sought to protect the dignity of those who lead unpopular and alternative lifestyles. She stands firmly for the right of women to their physical integrity.

Judge Alexander’s commitment to equality for all extends outside of the courtroom as well. Currently she serves on the Executive Committee and is co-chair of the Criminal Process Committee of the Minnesota Supreme Court Racial Bias Task Force. The study and report of the task force concluded in April 1993. Judge Alexander is also the chairperson for the Hennepin County District Court Equal Justice in the Courts Committee, which provides training for judges on gender and race issues, and the chairperson for the Government Committee of the Minneapolis Initiative Against Racism. She serves on the ABA Commission on Race and Racism in the Criminal Justice System.

Judge Alexander is married to Al Alexander, president of First Bank Uptown. They have two beautiful daughters. She is a devoted family person, but finds the time to become involved in community programs designed to improve the lives of children through community service and outreach and to help disadvantaged minority students receive a quality education. Her efforts have been recognized through a number of community service awards, such as the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity "Citizen of the Year" Award, the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity "Community Service Award," the NAACP Freedom Fund Award, as well as numerous others. Judge Alexander’s dedication to her family, to the community, and to the goal of attaining equal justice for all in the judicial system makes her a meritorious nominee for the federal bench. On the bench, she will continue to be a brave and sensitive judge who will treat those who come before her with decency and dignity.

Back to Top

 

Back to Top