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

HCBA Homepage            Meet the Judges            How District Court Works           Judicial Elections 

Judge Mark S. Wernick

Born:

March 27, 1950

Education:

1975  JD  Drake University of Law 
1972  BA University of Minnesota

Recent Career:

2002  Judge, Hennepin County District Court
1987  Wernick Law Office
1985  Mauzy & Wernick
1977  Wernick Law Office
1975  Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender

Elevated to Bench:

Appointed by Governor Jesse Ventura in 2002.
   

Previous Assignments:

11/2002 - 11/2003 Criminal (felony and misdemeanor)
12/2003 - 12/2005 Family
1/2006 - 12/2006 Criminal (felony and misdemeanor)
and Civil
1/2007 to present Criminal (felony only)

Current Assignments:

Criminal (felony only)
     

Read Profile from

Published in 
February 2003

   

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

 
   

- Family Court Info. and Individual Judge's Statistics for 2005 -
 
Data provided by Hennepin County District Court. View PDF.

 
   
  The Judge's Criminal Courtroom Procedures and Advice 
 
Provided on 3/2007 

Back to Top


Ground Rules for Trials with Judge Wernick Presiding:

  1. Number of jurors:  Determine number before panel is called.
     

  2. Be punctual:  Schedule will be announced in court for the following day.  Tell the clerk, reporter or judge of any time conflicts.
     

  3. Exhibits:  Pre-mark exhibits.  Provide exhibit list for court and opposing counsel.  Before trial, obtain rulings on admissibility of exhibits.  Before trial, provide opposing counsel with copies of all documents to be offered as exhibits.
     

  4. Witness list:  Prior to commencement of trial the parties shall exchange, and provide to the court reporter, a correctly spelled list of all witnesses who may be called.
     

  5. Recordings:  The court reporter will not transcribe the contents of any recording.  You must provide a transcript to the opposing party and the court reporter if you wish to have the content of the recording included in the record.  All objections to the transcript and the recording must be resolved before the exhibit is offered.  It is the responsibility of the offering party to arrange for playback equipment.
     

  6. Standing and Sitting: 
    (a)  Stand whenever the jury enters or leaves the courtroom.
    (b)  Sit for questioning and objections.
    (c)  Stand for judge only when directed by the judge’s clerk.
     

  7. Opening Statements and Closing Argument:
    (a)  Use of lectern is optional, lawyer is responsible for arranging.
    (b)  For opening statements, obtain the judge’s approval of any exhibits to be used.
     

  8. Objections:   
    (a)  Do not use speaking objections.
    (b)  State the objection, the legal basis for it and wait for a ruling.
    (c)  Common objections appropriately stated:
          1. Relevance (Rule 402) or Rule 403.
          2. Personal knowledge (Rule 602) or foundation.
          3. Beyond the scope (Rule 611)
          4. Hearsay (Rule 801).
          5. Authentication (Rule 901-02)
    (d)  No further argument unless requested by the Court.
    (e)  Minimal bench conferences.  Conferences are not on record.   Argument for the record will be made during breaks when jury is not present.
     

  9. Motions in Limine:
    (a)  Written motions in limine must be submitted one week before trial.  Prior Convictions (Rule 609).
    (b)  Motions in limine shall be made regarding prior convictions (Rule 609), other crimes (Rule 404(b), character evidence (Rules 404(a) and 608), hearsay (Rules 803-04), authentication (Rules 901-02), expert and lay opinion (Rules 701-05), and relevance and exclusion (Rules 402-03).
     

  10. Voir Dire Guidelines:
    (a)  Lawyers can ask if jurors agree or disagree with applicable legal principles and whether they could follow that law, but lawyers cannot ask what a jurors’ understanding of the law is.
    (b)  Lawyers cannot ask questions designed to argue their case
     

  11. Questioning Witnesses:
    (a)  Direct examination, other than preliminary matters or agreement of opposing counsel, cannot be leading, i.e., must ask who, where, when, how or why questions.
    (b)  Do not editorialize or repeat answers.
     

  12. Approaching Witnesses: 
    (a)  Approach only to refer to exhibit, do not linger by witness.
    (b)  One request per witness to approach is sufficient.
     

  13.  Jury Instructions:
    (a)  Any requested instructions should be submitted one week before trial.
    (b)  Charging conference and preparation of instructions will take place when the jury is not scheduled to be present.
    (c)  The jury will be instructed on charges and defenses after final arguments of counsel unless both counsel request otherwise.
     

  14. DECORUM:  Lawyers will comply with the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts.  Lawyers should pay particular attention to Title I, Rule 2. Court Decorum, Conduct of Judges and Lawyers, and to Title II, Part H. Minnesota Civil Trial Notebook. 

 

  Judicial Profile from The Hennepin Lawyer  (72:2:10)

Mark Wernick
Originally published in the February 2003 issue.
Author: Richard Kyle

Mark Wernick is Gov. Jesse Ventura’s final appointment to the Hennepin County District Court. On his first day on the job, Judge Wernick was assigned a murder case scheduled for trial in March. During his third week "shadowing" fellow judges in various courts, he took over the Brookdale court calendar for a day when the regularly scheduled judge called in sick.  After less than a month, he was assigned his own calendar.  Yes, Hennepin County’s newest judge has hit the ground running, which should come as no surprise given the breadth of his prior legal experience.

Judge Wernick grew up in Minneapolis, the youngest of three boys.  His parents were successful businesspeople who instilled in him the values of honesty, integrity, respect for others, and hard work.  He graduated from St. Louis Park High School in 1968 and received his undergraduate degree at the University of Minnesota in 1972.  It was not until law school, however, that Judge Wernick really found his calling.  He received his law degree from Drake University in 1975, graduating Order of the Coif.  At Drake he also received American Jurisprudence Awards in evidence, real property, contracts, labor law and landlord-tenant law.

After law school, Judge Wernick returned to Minnesota to take a job as an assistant Hennepin County public defender.  During his first year in the public defender’s office, he tried over 50 misdemeanor cases to the court (the pre-1975 Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure prescribed court, as opposed to jury, trials for all misdemeanor offenses).  In 1977, he left to open his own criminal defense practice, which, except for a brief partnership with attorney Bill Mauzy, he maintained until his recent appointment to the bench. 

As a sole practitioner, Judge Wernick’s practice was devoted almost exclusively to criminal defense work.  He handled a wide variety of cases, ultimately developing an expertise in white-collar criminal defense.  He tried several complex federal white-collar cases, including the Endotronics securities fraud trial, which lasted 93 trial days, and the Long Cadillac money-laundering trial, which lasted 25 trial days.  Since the early 1980s, he has also accepted appointments from the Federal Defender’s Office to handle significant drug cases and from the Hennepin County Public Defender’s Office to represent indigent defendants in murder cases.

One of the highlights of his legal career was arguing before the U. S. Supreme Court in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984).  The case originated in Hennepin County and established the scope of a probation officer’s duty to give Miranda warnings to a probationer who is suspected of committing a new crime.  Judge Wernick represented a young man accused of the rape and murder of his girlfriend.  The prosecutor was Robert Lynn (current Hennepin District Court judge) and the trial judge was Jonathan Lebedoff (current chief federal magistrate judge for the District of Minnesota).  In attendance at oral argument before the Supreme Court were Wernick’s family, Judge Lebedoff, and then-Hennepin County Attorney Tom Johnson.  "I was privileged to witness the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court," recalls Judge Lebedoff.  "Mark’s performance was typical of Mark.  He has an extraordinary legal mind.  He is also a wonderful person.  He will make a great judge."  The Murphy case is still cited to in most criminal procedure treatises and law review articles pertaining to confessions.

Despite Judge Wernick’s significant experience in the area of criminal defense, he is no stranger to civil cases.  On numerous occasions he worked with civil lawyers on parallel civil and criminal proceedings in the areas of securities and health care fraud.  From these contacts with the civil bar Judge Wernick gained an appreciation for the subtleties of complicated civil litigation, and he looks forward to getting a civil block of cases in the future.

In addition to his courtroom experience, Judge Wernick brings a great deal of pro bono, professional association, and community service experience to his new position on the district court bench.  From 1995 to the time of his appointment, he was a board member, and for two of those years board president, at the Legal Rights Center, a non-profit corporation that provides criminal defense services to minority communities in Hennepin County.  In 1996 and 1997, he chaired the Criminal Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association, and in 2000, he served as president of the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Since 1985, Judge Wernick has served on the board of the Sabathani Community Center.  Sabathani is a non-profit corporation in South Minneapolis that provides social service and development programs for children, adults, and seniors.  Sabathani also owns the former Bryant Junior High School in South Minneapolis and is landlord for over 40 nonprofit organizations that office there.  Serving on the Sabathani board has had a great impact on Judge Wernick’s thinking about criminal justice issues.  "During my 17 years at Sabathani, I have come to better understand race and social justice issues.  I think that the neighborhoods and families served by Sabathani expect judges to hold offenders accountable, but with a recognition that there are social conditions that contribute to criminal behavior."

When asked what inspired him to leave private practice to become a district court judge, Wernick explained: "I wanted a change from being an advocate to being a neutral.  As a judge, I can remain in the world of litigation, which I love, but make my decisions with more of a focus on serving justice." He has enjoyed his first few months on the bench, especially handling his own criminal calendar.  It definitely feels different, however, being on the other side of the bench.  The biggest challenge has been "making so many quick decisions on a daily basis.  I now have a greater appreciation for the heavy caseload in Hennepin County."

Judge Wernick emphasizes that prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers appearing
before him can expect fair and considered treatment of their cases.  "I don’t subscribe to the theory that my criminal defense background will be a predictor on how I will rule in any given case.  More important than experience in the criminal defense bar is my personal makeup and background."  Former colleagues agree.  Jerod Peterson, a criminal defense attorney who officed with Judge Wernick for many years, had this to say about his former colleague: "He will be respectful of litigants and yet demand the same high level of competence from the advocates who appear before him that he demanded of himself when he was practicing.  At the same time, he will show compassion for people whose limited circumstances have led them to involvement with the court system.  I am greatly pleased that he has chosen to leave his highly successful private practice to make his talents available to the wider public."

In his spare time, Judge Wernick can be found most mornings walking around Cedar Lake with his wife, Nancy Entwistle, a graphic designer at the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  He also enjoys attending the theatre, movies, and dining with family and friends.  This past fall he began attending yoga classes on Saturday mornings.  "I’m 52 now and not as flexible as I used to be."

Judge Wernick brings a wide range of experience to the bench: skilled courtroom advocacy; leadership in professional associations, and service in the community.  He is a man who loves the law and possesses compassion for those whom it affects.  Mark Wernick will be an outstanding judge for many years to come.

Back to Top

Back to Top