|
|
Judge
Cara Lee Neville |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Education: |
|
1975
JD William Mitchell College of Law |
|
|
|
|
Recent
Career: |
|
1986
Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1983 Judge, Hennepin County Municipal Court
1978 Assistant Public Defender, Hennepin County
1972 Hennepin County Attorney’s Office (Felony
Division) |
|
|
|
|
Elevated
to Bench: |
|
Appointed
by Governor Rudy Perpich to Municipal Court in 1983.
Appointed to District Court in 1986.
Elected in 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
Assignments: |
|
|
9/1983 to 1/1986 |
Criminal |
|
2/1986 to 12/1992 |
Civil Block and
Criminal |
|
1/1993 to 12/1995 |
Probate/Mental
Health Presiding Judge |
|
1/1996 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
2 |
7.6 |
8.5 |
|
Tried by Jury |
2 |
11.2 |
14.3 |
|
Settled (Includes Closed
by ADR) |
133 |
7.6 |
7.9 |
|
Closed Summary
Judgment |
14 |
8.2 |
7.3 |
|
Dismissed |
26 |
6.6 |
5.1 |
|
Closed by Arbitration |
11 |
7.8 |
6.6 |
|
Other Closed |
71 |
4.5 |
2.7 |
|
Closed by Admin. |
1 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
|
Total: |
260 |
6.7 |
5.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Judge's Civil Courtroom Procedures and Advice |
Back
to Top
|
1. What are your preferred procedures
regarding motion practice?
Motions are heard
weekdays at 8:45 a.m., 9 a.m., 1:15 p.m., and 1:30 p.m.
Exceptions are made for earlier times in the a.m. and during the
noon hour if needed. [The judge's weekly assignment varies.
While assigned to the suburbs, only short motions (15 min. or
less) may be heard at those locations.] Motions to compel may be
heard via telephone conference if the issues are relatively
simple and can be resolved within 10 minutes or less and the
parties agree. Otherwise, counsel shall set up a formal hearing,
giving required notice to opposing side. Send one courtesy copy
of all motion papers directly to judge's chambers and file the
original with the Clerk of District Court.
2. What
are your preferred procedures regarding hearings?
Motions are held in the
courtroom with a court reporter present. Occasionally, the court
may hold a hearing in chambers via speakerphone or conference
call when parties agree, generally with a court reporter
present. Arguments are generally limited to 10-15 minutes per
side. Pretrial settlement conferences are held in chambers, and
only recorded if a settlement is reached.
3. What
do you expect the attorneys to have ready at the pretrial
conference?
Clients, claims adjusters
and the attorney who will actually try the case are to attend.
Counsel should come with clients prepared to attempt to resolve
the case. Counsel should make clients aware of the likelihood of
success on the merits if tried, balanced against settlement
demand and offers. Counsel should have calendars to set a trial
date if needed.
4. At what point to you expect the parties to undertake ADR, if
at all?
All cases, with minor exception, are
referred to ADR prior to a settlement conference or trial.
Generally, parties either agree to submit the case to mediation,
or the court will select arbitration. Parties may mutually agree
upon a mediator.
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.?)
Settlement is always encouraged by the court--the sooner the
better. The court believes expenses of discovery and preparation
should be kept to a minimum. If the parties can attempt to
resolve the case early on, it is best for everyone.
6.
Do you require that a person with ultimate authority to settle
be present at settlement negotiations?
Yes, as mentioned above--trial counsel, parties and claims
adjusters must be present.
7. How
do you expect the parties to handle discovery disputes
(including calling you for a ruling during a deposition)?
The court believes
counsel should be able to resolve most discovery disputes on
their own. The court may hear the matter informally by phone
first to see if it can be resolved. (A brief letter outlining
the dispute is requested by the court prior to the call.) If a
formal motion is required, a courtesy copy should be sent to the
judge. It is often obvious that one side is not complying with
discovery, or attempting to be difficult. These types of matters
should be resolved by counsel. The occasional call during a
deposition is handled ASAP by the court depending on
availability.
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.
(See 1 and 2 above) Yes. The attorney requesting the phone
conference is asked to arrange the conference. Sworn testimony
is not usually taken by phone.
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)?
All cell phones, pagers, and electronic devices should be
deactivated before entering the courtroom. Court follows
courtroom decorum. Water is available to counsel at table.
Clients should be informed by counsel of proper etiquette,
including comments, gestures, etc. Please stand when addressing
the court and ask to approach either the court or a witness,
before doing so.
10.
When, if ever, would you consider issuing sanctions, formal
reprimands, holding an attorney in contempt, or reporting an
attorney for unethical behavior?
If the case warrants, the
court will award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party for a
frivolous motion or cause of action. Additionally I have, albeit
rarely, referred a case to the Board of Professional
Responsibility for review upon circumstances where I felt it my
ethical obligation to do. As each unique situation arises, the
court must decide within its discretion what is the proper route
to take. These types of occurrences are fortunately the
exceptions and are very, very rare.
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?
Parties may contact my clerk to schedule hearings, check the
trial status of a case, and for general procedural and
housekeeping matters. Ex parte communication with the court is
not allowed.
12.
What is your practice with granting continuances and under what
circumstances would you consider granting one?
Continuances for trial are not usually granted, but the court
may allow a continuance if counsel agree, and the case falls
within 1 to 1.5 years old from time of filing. trial date. If
there are extenuating medical issues, the court will also extend
the time needed, to accommodate parties for trial. Family
emergencies, medical issues, are reasonable requests
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?
I prefer counsel to highlight and emphasize main points of their
argument and not just read their already read briefs. The court
will usually have read all of the briefs, but let you know if it
hasn't. The court may request special direction to a particular
issue, for clarification. It is best to keep arguments brief.
(The court has a daily assignment to handle, aside from
motions.)
14.
What do you consider to be the basic requirements of good oral
argument (including the amount of time appropriate for oral
argument)?
See 13.) Each side should
be limited to 15 minutes (2 parties). The court tries to limit
discovery hearings to 15 minutes; summary judgment motions to 30
minutes (total); misc. approvals, etc. to 15 minutes. A daily
assignment is usually waiting for the court to start, so times
may vary. Please submit copies of important cases cited to the
court. Good oral argument is concise, to the point and speaks to
the logic and reasoning of the case, rather than by hyperbole
and string cites.
15.
What preferences do you have for jury trials? How do you prefer
voir dire to be conducted?
Counsel should "agree" on a paragraph to read to the
jury at the start of trial. Exhibits should be pre-marked (and
reviewed by all counsel) before trial begins. 1 week before
trial, the witness list, exhibit list, jury instructions and
motions in limine should be submitted to the court. The court
commences preliminary questioning of the jury panel, then turns
it over to trial counsel for questioning usually upon agreement
of counsel. Use both civil and criminal methods. No wandering or
speaking objections. Simply "objection" and the
grounds in the rules is sufficient. If court tells the jury to
return at 1:30, the court will try to be available at 1:15 for
any loose ends that need to be covered.
|
Back
to Top |
|
|
|
|
The Judge's Criminal Courtroom Procedures and Advice
|
Back
to Top |
1.
What are your expectations of attorneys (both defense and state)
at arraignment?
Be efficient. Try to have talked to
your client ahead of time if possible. Have your calendar to set
dates.
2. What
do you see as the bench’s role in settlement at the pretrial
stage?
To facilitate a fair
disposition rather than to just churn out cases or set for
trial.
3. If so, what
limitations do you place on ex parte contacts with your staff?
May contact staff to set
dates, request modifications or clarification of sentences.
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)?
Court generally starts at 9:00 or
9:30 (depending on motions scheduled) and goes until 12:00 or
12:15 p.m., with a mid-morning break. In the afternoon, it
starts at 1:30 or 1:45 p.m. and goes until 4:30 or 5:00 p.m.,
with a break midway.
6.
What policies do you have concerning weapons, firearms and
ammunition exhibits in the courtroom?
Notify court and staff
before bringing into courtroom. Bring in boxes and have trigger
locks, wrapped blades, etc. Ammunition is to be kept separately
from firearms. Ask staff to request glass box casing for weapons
if appropriate. Always have weapons pointed down and away from
jury. Have expert or other witness ensure firearms are unloaded
before they are presented.
7. What
policies do you have concerning drugs and other sensitive
exhibits in the courtroom?
Latex
gloves are to be used if handling bloody items. All clothing is
to be bagged if possible. Exhibits are kept in the custody of
the clerk, and locked up when court is not in session.
8. Do
you have any other specific policies concerning exhibits?
(See above.) Weapons are often enclosed in a locked case.
9.
When do you discuss proposed jury instructions with attorneys?
Second day
of trial.
10.
What are your policies concerning jury sequestration?
Rarely
sequester the jury panel.
11. Do
you have any specific policies or practices concerning
pre-sentence investigations or sentencing?
Not
really--all attorneys should have their own copies and should
read prior to any sentencing or chambers conference that
precedes the sentencing.
|
|
| |
|
|
Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer (61:3:12) |
|
|
|
|
Cara
Lee Neville
Originally published in
the January/February 1992
issue.
Author: Michael L. Perlman
Intelligent.
Involved. Indefatigable. If Hennepin County District Court Judge
Cara Lee Neville were a candidate for a political office, these
adjectives might deservedly appear on her campaign literature.
While Judge Neville is not planning a career change, last
October she assumed the prestigious office of President of the
National Association of Women Judges, a 1,000-plus member
organization of federal and state court judges, justices, and
ALJs from all 50 states. Founded in 1979, the Association is
heavily involved in developing curriculum and programs that can
be used as teaching tools for members of the bench in areas of
bioethics, reproductive technology, child support, women in
prison, and violence in society. It has also spawned an
international association of women judges.
As
president of the NAWJ, Neville is in constant demand for
appearances at national seminars, conferences, and even network
television programs. In the first few months alone, she taught a
one-week trial skills class at Harvard University, moderated a
panel on bio-medical issues for the Minnesota District Judges
Association, participated on a panel on legal ethics in
Annapolis, Maryland, appeared on both a local TV show and a
network news program in Chicago, and participated in a
conference on violence in Kansas City. She lectures frequently
at CLE programs nationwide, mostly for the American Bar
Association.
Neville
is refreshingly candid and outspoken about her views regarding
legal and societal issues of the day. When asked about ways in
which the legal system could improve its response to domestic
violence and sexual abuse against women and children, she
remarked that there is a considerable problem with the number of
cases that end up dismissed without a trial on the merits. She
commented that "women who are caught in the battered woman
syndrome have a very difficult time getting out of it, and
offenders often do not receive the treatment or education they
need at an early age. We need to tak ie the issues of family
violence more seriously. We need to better educate and sensitize
the public and the professionals that work with victims and
alleged offenders while zealously guarding the constitutional
rights of each." On a national level, Neville feels that we
need better support services for women and better treatment
programs for offenders. The problem, says Neville, is that there
is not enough money available to do the job. Referring to a
newspaper article quote from the American Medical Association
that, because of domestic violence, "the home has become
more dangerous for women than city streets," Neville
advocates for greater emphasis on counseling of children who are
exposed to family violence in an effort to hold down the
eruption of violent behavior in later years, manifested for
example, in date rape, battering of girlfriends, and intrafamily
violence, including elder abuse. Earlier intervention suggests
Neville, might help foster healthier marriages, families, and
child-rearing practices.
On the
issue of sexual harassment, Neville believes that progress has
been made. When asked her opinion about the Clarence Thomas
confirmation hearings and the testimony of Anita Hill, Neville
observed that "the positive that came out of it was that it
gave the nation an opportunity to focus on the issue of sexual
harassment and discuss it openly. The unfortunate part was that
it occurred in the context of a United States Supreme Court
appointment." Is there a balanced representation of women
in the legal profession? "That depends on the area,"
noted Neville. "In the public sector, I would say yes, but
in private practice, no." The NAWJ is continuing its work
to eliminate gender bias in the courts through gender bias task
forces, nationally, and Neville notes, with pride, that
Minnesota lawyers serving on gender bias task forces are leading
the way to better conditions throughout the country, not only in
areas of bias against women, but against men as well.
While
serving her one-year term as president of the NAWJ, Neville
maintains her normal schedule as a trial judge in Hennepin
County. Appointed to the municipal court in 1983 and the
district court in 1986, Neville finds that the most enjoyable
part of her work as a judge are trials, both civil and criminal.
From a procedural point of view, the part of the job she
dislikes most is civil case settlement conferences and
inadequate chamber time to read or write. On a personal level,
Neville cites isolation from lawyers as a difficult aspect of
being a trial judge. "Lawyers act differently toward
judges, and you feel the distance," she says. However, this
comes with the territory because a judge must maintain
impartiality in discharging her duties, she notes.
To stay
in touch with lawyers and current issues, Neville has always
been active in bar association activities and teaching. The list
of her involvements is a lengthy one, to say the least, but a
sampling would include the following: first woman president of
the Student Bar Association at William Mitchell College of Law;
executive director of the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association,
1974-75; Outstanding Young Woman in Minnesota, 1977; president
of MTLA prior to her appointment to the bench; MSBA delegate to
the ABA House of Delegates; Fellow, American Bar Foundation;
past director, Minnesota Bar Foundation; Board of Governors of
the ABA; Criminal Justice Section, National Task Force on Drugs;
International Criminal Law Committee (ABA); Board of Governors,
Minnesota State Bar Association; Board of Directors, Women
Judges’ Fund for Justice; and the HCBA. The list could go on.
She also recently completed a term as chair of the Hennepin
County District Bench Civil Law and Civil Case Flow Management
Committees.
Neville
is the mother of two sons—Michael, 14, who is in 8th grade,
and Joshua, 11, a 4th grader. An avid equestrienne in her
"leisure" time, the judge and her sons raise, buy and
sell show horses.
When
asked if she had any special message that she would like to
share with the Hennepin County bar, Neville did not hesitate—"Civility
among attorneys. I am concerned about the lack of courtesy
between counsel, agreements that are not kept, and accusations
of unethical conduct by attorneys against their colleagues. It
would also be nice to see some support for the bench. The
judiciary is trying very hard to make the system work. We really
are working hard."
Working
hard comes naturally to Judge Cara Lee Neville.
|
Back
to Top
|
|
|
|
Back
to Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|