Judge Kaman - Hennepin County District Court

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

HCBA Homepage Meet the Judges How District Court Works Judicial Elections

Judge Marilyn J. Kaman
Formerly Judge Marilyn J. Justman

Born:

1947

Education:

1978 JD   University of Wisconsin
1971 MAT University of Chicago
1971 Certificate of Proficiency (Russian),
          Leningrad State University, U.S.S.R.,
1970 BA   Vanderbilt University

Recent Career:

1990-Present Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1998-2000 Adjunct Professor, William Mitchell College of Law
1984-1990 Assistant Public Defender, Hennepin County
1983-1984 Adjunct Professor, William Mitchell College of Law
1979-1982 Associate Attorney, Dorsey and Whitney

Elevated to Bench:

Appointed by Governor Rudy Perpich in 1990.
Elected in 1992, 1998, and 2006

Previous Assignments:

1/1990 to 7/1992	Criminal Court
8/1992 to 6/1994	Presiding Judge, Mental Health Court
7/1994 to 12/2000	Civil Block and Criminal
1/2001 to 12/2002	Family Court
11/2002 to 7/2003	Served as International Judge for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), assigned to Pec/Peje, Kosovo.
7/2003 to Present	Civil and Criminal

Current Assignments:

Civil and Criminal

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

Data provided by Hennepin County District Court Civil Court Dispositions in 2005:
Cases are reported from date of filing. During that time cases may be transferred between judges for various reasons. The age of the cases and the time elapsed before trial, therefore, may not be attributable to the judge who eventually handles the trial.
Type of Disposition	Number	Avg. Age at Disposition in Months	Avg. Age at Disposition for this Court
Tried by Court	7	12	8.5
Tried by Jury	5	17.3	14.3
Settled (Includes Closed by ADR)	110	6.2	7.9
Closed Summary Judgment	8	6.6	7.3
Dismissed	16	5.7	5.1
Closed by Arbitration	7	9.7	6.6
Other Closed	83	2.5	2.7
Closed by Admin.	1	0	0.4
Total:	237	5.4	5.7


	Read Profile from
	Published in July/August 1994

The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice

Back to Top

1. What are your preferred procedures regarding motion practice?
Before any motion is heard, counsel should comply with Minn.R.Gen.Prac. 115.10. Motions are heard each day of the week, typically at 8:30, 9:00, and 1:30. Be sure to send "courtesy copy" directly to chambers (one courtesy copy is sufficient) since originals filed with district court may not be filed into the court file by the time of the hearing. Call to cancel the motion if the matter is resolved.

2. What are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
Hearings are always held formally in the courtroom and on the record. Call to cancel the hearing if the matter is resolved in advance.

3. What do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial conference?
Attorneys should have discussed settlement prospects with their clients in advance. Attorneys should consult with opposing counsel prior to the pretrial conference. All discovery must be complete and ADR processes must be concluded. If the case does not settle, attorneys should be prepared to discuss trial management issues.

4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if at all?
ADR is required on almost all cases. The parties may select their own mediator and should notify the court’s clerk of their selection. ADR must be completed prior to pretrial.

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.?)
The parties should initiate settlement discussions from the beginning. The Court will inquire of settlement efforts throughout the process, beginning during the first telephone conference, immediately after the case is filed with District Court.

6. Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle be present at settlement negotiations?
Yes, the person with ultimate authority to settle must be present in order to conduct a meaningful settlement.

7. How do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes (including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
Try to resolve the differences among yourselves. If that does not succeed in resolving the dispute, call the court’s clerk (612-348-8487) and ask for an informal telephone conference with the Court. During that telephone conference (off the record), the Court will attempt to resolve the parties’ differences. If this does not resolve the matter, a formal, on-the-record motion hearing will be scheduled. The Court will make every attempt to be available to the parties during deposition. Again, call the Court’s clerk, if necessary.

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.
Typically, the only hearings conducted by phone will be discovery issues. If the parties are unable to resolve discovery disputes after first conferring among themselves, then they should call the court’s clerk (612-348-8487) and ask for an informal telephone conference with the Court. During that telephone conference (off the record), the Court will attempt to resolve the parties’ differences. If this does not resolve the matter, a formal, on-the-record motion hearing will be scheduled. Because telephone conferences normally are off the record, no transcript will be generated. Telephone testimony will be taken only in the most urgent circumstances, determined on a case-by-case basis. The party requesting the hearing usually initiates the telephone conference.

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)?
Standard rules of decorum.

10. When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an attorney for unethical behavior?
This situation rarely presents an issue for the Court. In the exceptionally rare circumstance where it does arise, the Court will follow ethical norms in acting on this issue. Regarding sanctions, I have and will issue sanctions, pursuant to law, in order to compensate an aggrieved party.

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 will the Court will NOT be allowed. Communications with the Court’s staff may be necessary in a given case to schedule or cancel a hearing, to confirm a hearing, to find out status of trial setting, and similar matters relating to housekeeping issues and not the merits. The Court has carefully trained its staff regarding the impropriety of ex parte communications on the merits, and such communications will not be permitted.

12. What is your practice with granting continuances and under what circumstances would you consider granting one?
Trial continuances will not be permitted, except in the most unforeseen circumstances. Trial dates are set well in advance, so there should be no reason for a continuance. All scheduling issues should be raised either at the telephone conference with the Court immediately after case filing, or at the pretrial conference. The Scheduling Order may not be amended by the parties’ consent, without prior consultation with the Court.

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?
The parties should assume that the Court has read the pleadings in advance of oral argument. A shorter argument is preferred. Cite your main contentions with corresponding reference to exhibits supporting the contention (i.e., "see Smith Affidavit, p. 2"). The Court likely will ask questions during the hearing in order to clarify issues.

14. What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral argument)?
Usually one half hour has been allotted for the entire (all sides) argument. The parties should assume that the Court has read the pleadings in advance of oral argument. Cite the main contentions argument, with corresponding reference to exhibits supporting the contention (i.e., "see Smith Affidavit, p. 2"). Don't read what you have written; the Court reads all materials submitted to it. If you give a reference, the Court will return to it during its research.

15. What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer voir dire to be conducted?
All exhibits must be pre-marked and accompanied by 3 copies of the exhibit list (one for the Court, the reporter, the court’s clerk). Courtesy copies of exhibits should be made for the Court. Sine the parties are under a duty to seasonably supplement discovery under Minn.R.Civ.Proc. 26.05, discovery surprises at trial should be rare. Follow the Order for Trial regarding exhibit lists, witness lists and proposed jury instructions and verdict form. An informal discussion the day of trial should suffice to have us all operating under the same rules and understandings.

The Judge's Criminal Courtroom Procedures and Advice

Back to Top

1. What are your expectations of attorneys (both defense and state) at arraignment?
I expect the attorney to be prepared and to move as quickly as possible and to have their calendars available for selecting future case dates. Questions to the clerk (re: other cases, etc.) should be handled prior to the start or upon completion of the calendar so as not to delay the flow of the calendar.

2. What do you see as the bench’s role in settlement at the pretrial stage?
The Court will take an active role in all settlement discussions.

3. If so, what limitations do you place on ex parte contacts with your staff?
Ex parte communications with my staff should be limited to administrative and procedural matters only.

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

5. When in trial, what hours do you normally use for the trial itself (including breaks and lunch recesses)?
Normally, I begin at trial 9:30 a.m. (after completion of morning motions, sentencings) and break for lunch as close to noon as possible. The afternoon begins at 1:30 or 2:00 p.m. and ends at 4:30 p.m. I generally take an additional mid-morning break and one mid-afternoon break. There are always exceptions to this general rule such as: will run longer in the a.m. or p.m. in order to accommodate a witness, but only after conferring with counsel and the jurors. The Court sill make every effort to accommodate professional and personal conflicts.

6. What policies do you have concerning weapons, firearms and ammunition exhibits in the courtroom?
A deputy examines the gun and places a trigger lock on the firearm or places it in a glass box prior to the start of the trial, with the ammo kept separate from the weapon. Similar precautions with knives and other similar weapons.

7. What policies do you have concerning drugs and other sensitive exhibits in the courtroom?
Once contraband or other sensitive materials are admitted, they are placed in a locked location when not in trial.

8. Do you have any other specific policies concerning exhibits?
No.

9. When do you discuss proposed jury instructions with attorneys?
I accept proposed jury instructions prior to the start of the trial and begin working on them before the trial is completed. This may require the attorneys to stay late one evening.

10. What are your policies concerning jury sequestration?
Either side can request sequestration, but I do not favor it.

11. Do you have any specific policies or practices concerning pre-sentence investigations or sentencing?
No.

Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (63:6:15)

Marilyn Justman Kaman (formerly Marilyn J. Justman)
Originally published in the July/August 1994 issue.
Author: Thomas C. Gallagher

Three themes emerge from a look at Judge Marilyn J. Justman’s career. First, Justman has been a hardworking, bright, and dedicated legal expert. Second, Justman consistently has acted on her values, helping those in need. Thirdly, Justman has combined her career endeavors with a busy family life. Justman has three sons: Andrew, age 16; Jeffrey, age 12; and Matthew, age 10.

Justman grew up in Appleton, Wis., near Green Bay. She studied for her B.A., cum laude, at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. Justman earned her M.A. in teaching Russian and French at the University of Chicago and spent several months in Leningrad-St. Petersburg working toward a Ph.D. in Russian linguistics. She then married a medical doctor whom she met at the University of Chicago. She decided not to pursue her Ph.D. in linguistics.

In the early 1970s, Justman began working as a lawyer’s secretary. A young associate attorney with the law firm encouraged Justman herself to become a lawyer. She attended law school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, serving on the Wisconsin Law Review and receiving her J.D., cum laude, in 1978. (She studied one year at the University of Minnesota Law School, when her husband had a job in the Twin Cities.) She had her first child during her third year of law school.

Justman’s first job as a lawyer was with Dorsey and Whitney law firm, doing municipal bond work. She resigned in 1982 to have her second child and be a full-time mother, though she did teach legal writing at night at William Mitchell College of Law. Six weeks after the birth of her third child, Justman was offered a job-share position as a public defender for Hennepin County.

"Marilyn Justman and Karen Collins blazed a new trail, leading the way in the first job-share position in the Hennepin County Public Defender’s Office," noted David Murrin of the Hennepin County Public Defender’s Office. She later switched to a full-time position there.

Murrin recalled,

[Justman] once defended a guy charged with stabbing a Guardian Angel. Police Chief Tony Bouza had declared the Guardian Angel a hero for "arresting" the defendant. But a recording of a witness calling the incident in to 911 said the defendant had been the victim in the altercation. And the jury agreed with Justman, not Bouza and the news media, that the defendant had acted in self-defense and was not guilty.

Judge Patrick Fitzgerald recalled Justman’s work as a public defender: "She tried a number of cases in front of me achieving a string of victories—it was just unreal. Justman was a very good trial lawyer. She was well prepared and knew her law and evidence. She left no stone unturned on behalf of her client."

When a judicial vacancy arose, friends encouraged her to apply. Gov. Rudy Perpich appointed Justman to the Hennepin County District Court bench in January 1990.

As a new judge, Justman handled a two-year block of criminal cases—from traffic to murder. She did several months on a civil block of cases in 1992 for a colleague on maternity leave.

One of the lawyers who tried a civil case in front of Judge Justman in 1992 was Phil Pfaffly of Robbins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi The medical malpractice case, which led to a $7.2 million jury verdict, involved an epileptic person who was neglected in a hospital psychiatric ward, and as a result became quadriplegic. Pfaffly said, "She was really conscientious. She took work home. She was very well prepared. And she was honest enough to ask when she wasn’t up to speed on an issue. She was very decisive when making rulings—some for me, some against me—and the trial moved along quickly."

In August 1992, Justman volunteered to serve as presiding judge in Hennepin County District Court’s Mental Health Division, where she served through June 1994. While in mental health court, Justman worked vigorously on behalf of persons with mental illnesses. As presiding judge, "her contribution has extended well beyond hearing cases," said Chief Judge Kevin Burke. Justman oversaw management of the court. And her dedication went beyond her job description. She recently worked on a major legislative initiative to reform the Commitment Act. Although that legislation was vetoed by the governor, she successfully advocated legislation authorizing a Supreme Court task force to study and recommend improvements to the Commitment Act.

Judge Marilyn Justman is enthusiastic about her recent assignment to a civil block of cases, beginning July 1994. Justman’s current judicial goals as she begins her new assignment include getting to know the civil bar, helping litigants resolve disputes efficiently, and actively involving herself in settlement.

"Attorneys should have certain expectations of me—that I will be prepared, be tough if necessary, be honest with them, and be scrupulously fair," Judge Justman said. "In turn, I expect the same from attorneys," she added.

On the people the courts serve, Judge Justman reflected,

Another aspect of this job is that most people don’t come to court that often. I might be their only contact with the court. Not only does the content of the decision have to be sound and well informed, but the way I give that decision is equally important. Judges don’t have to be arrogant. They can and should be human and humane. It’s important to me to be both.

When not on the bench, Justman continues her long practice of volunteering through the Episcopal Church. Currently she serves on the Board of Episcopal Community Services, a family support agency dedicated to empowering families, children, and young adults to realize their full potential by reducing the barriers limiting their choices in life.

Judge Justman has earned a reputation as an excellent trial lawyer, legal scholar, and conscientious district court judge. In addition to her enthusiasm for her work as a judge, she brings to the bench, bar, and community her diverse experiences as a liberal arts academic; a teacher; a working, single mother; a person active in her community; a civil lawyer for a private firm; and a criminal trial lawyer for the public defender’s office. We are fortunate indeed to have the legal expertise, energy, and humanity of Judge Marilyn J. Justman.