Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER 1: Good morning Mr. [BLEEP]. In October 1977, Maplewood, Rice, and [? B., ?] Defendant is charged with driving while under the influence-- driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.1 or more. Those are both misdemeanors, failure to change his address on his driver's license, petty misdemeanor, and possession of a small amount of marijuana, just bare possession, petty misdemeanor.

SPEAKER 2: What was the breath or blood test result?

BOB POTTER: What's you're hearing is not staged. It is a recording of actual proceedings in a Minnesota courtroom. The making and broadcast of such recordings is practically unprecedented in Minnesota. It has happened in this state only once before and has been permitted here only on an experimental basis for Minnesota Public Radio.

SPEAKER 3: Do you want to take a look at this sales contract? Is that your signature? Did you enter into that contract with the Furniture Barn?

SPEAKER 4: Yeah.

SPEAKER 3: They claim that you have not made the payments as you agreed.

SPEAKER 4: That's right.

SPEAKER 3: If it is, what's the reason why you didn't make--

SPEAKER 4: The reason why is because it's falling apart.

SPEAKER 3: The furniture?

SPEAKER 4: I bought it-- the furniture is falling apart. I've called several times regarding it. I've been out there. They wouldn't do anything about it. I said, well, I'm not paying anything until I receive a different set because I said, the zippers are falling out of it. The cushions, when you sit on one cushion, the other cushion--

BOB POTTER: The proceedings you're hearing here are an average civil controversy being heard in Ramsey County Conciliation Court in front of Judge John Kirby. The first excerpt you heard was from misdemeanor arraignments in municipal court in Maplewood. We'll hear more from both courts later in the program. They have been edited only slightly for reasons of privacy and time.

This program is the sixth in Minnesota Public Radio's series on the Role of the Courts in a Changing Society. The series is produced by MPR with the financial assistance of the Nash Foundation and the Minnesota State Bar Foundation.

In this program, we'll take a brief look at the lower court levels of Minnesota's court system, mainly conciliation or small claims court, plus a little about county court. These are the levels of court which touch the most people, which handle the smaller but most common conflicts. And we'll hear how different it was 50 years ago, back in the days when St. Paul was a wide-open city, when politics, police, courts, and criminals were all one, big, happy family.

RALPH STACKER: Judges got by with murder. I know when I started practicing in municipal court, the most profitable law business was bootleggers. And there was a certain judge that was a very good friend of mine. I could just about write the ticket as to what punishment she did. I would, but nothing the matter, just he knew--

BOB POTTER: More later from veteran St. Paul attorney, Ralph Stacker. But first, we want to start by looking at conciliation court. Kathleen Merrick is the senior clerk of conciliation court in Ramsey County. Handling well over 10,000 cases each year, Merrick's office is one of the busiest in the courthouse.

KATHLEEN MERRICK: Conciliation court is a small claims court for any claim under $1,000. There's a $3 filing fee. The person you're suing must be in Ramsey County, except for-- on damage deposits. Now, that law has been changed. If it's for damaged deposit, you can sue a landlord who is out of the county as long as the property was in Ramsey County. That's the only exception that there is to the law.

The landlord cannot sue the party who rented from him for rent. And the only thing we can take is the security deposit, or if you have an accident with an out-of-state car, we can also take that. And the Commissioner of Highways will act as the agent for service in that matter. Otherwise, we're strictly limited to Ramsey County jurisdiction.

INTERVIEWER: All right, an agent for service for an accident that occurred within Ramsey County?

KATHLEEN MERRICK: Within Minnesota-- in the state of Minnesota.

BOB POTTER: It works the same way in other counties of the state. If you think someone owes you under $1,000, you can take the party to court all by yourself. Generally, you must appear in the county where the other person lives, but you may file the papers in any county.

You'll pay a filing fee between $2 and $10, but if you win your case, the fee will be returned. If the person you are suing thinks you owe him or her money from any dealing you've had, that person can file a counterclaim, and both matters will be heard at the same time.

Either party can have the case heard instead in County Court, where attorneys are usually needed. But if you go to conciliation court, the result will almost always be the same, and you do the whole thing yourself, without ever needing an attorney.

SPEAKER 1: I'd like to make a complaint. I'm doing a complaint, please.

SPEAKER 2: Does the person that you want to take to court live in Ramsey County?

SPEAKER 1: Yes, he does.

SPEAKER 2: And is it general or due to an auto accident?

SPEAKER 1: General.

SPEAKER 2: All right. What's your name?

SPEAKER 3: [BLEEP]

SPEAKER 2: J-O-A-N-N?

SPEAKER 3: Right.

SPEAKER 2: And your address?

SPEAKER 3: [BLEEP] East Maryland.

SPEAKER 2: East Maryland. St. Paul? Mm-hmm. Patricia [BLEEP] is who you're taking to court?

SPEAKER 3: Mm-hmm, right.

SPEAKER 2: P-A-T-R-I-C-I-A. And her address?

SPEAKER 3: [BLEEP]

SPEAKER 1: That's in St. Paul.

SPEAKER 3: Right.

SPEAKER 2: And what is the total amount you want to sue for?

SPEAKER 3: $507.

SPEAKER 2: $507?

SPEAKER 3: Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER 2: I can make it $510 then because it's going to cost you $3 to file it. And what is it for?

SPEAKER 3: Furniture.

SPEAKER 2: What about--

SPEAKER 1: Living room furnitures.

SPEAKER 2: Who's? What?

SPEAKER 1: They have it, and they will not return it.

SPEAKER 2: This is Joann [BLEEP] furniture?

SPEAKER 3: Yes.

SPEAKER 2: Or plaintiff's-- furniture, which-- now, were you living with this person and you moved out, and that's why she has it, or what's--

SPEAKER 3: She was living with this Patricia [BLEEP] daughter. They had moved in. And she had a furniture stored at these people's homes. It's in-- three other parties that are included in this, too, her son and her other daughter. It's just a big mess. But they have the furniture--

INTERVIEWER: What kind of cases do you get? What variety?

KATHLEEN MERRICK: Mostly, a lot of rent cases, a lot of security deposits on tenants suing for the return of their damaged deposits. We have an awful lot of those, and of course, automobile accidents. With $1,000 jurisdiction, that takes in quite a bit, and practically anything that--

SPEAKER 1: My ex-wife is suing me for some money.

SPEAKER 2: Oh, really? What are the circumstances?

SPEAKER 1: A divorce and I owed her some money. And I don't figure she's got it coming.

SPEAKER 3: Why? I'm the manager of the Grand Hotel, and some-- a tenant we had there several months ago was drunk, 16 days. Out of the 16 we had him there, somebody stole about $700 worth of his electrician tools, and he thinks we're responsible for it. Well, he's bringing me in to court, sir, the hotel.

SPEAKER 4: That's the first time I've been here. I'm being sued.

INTERVIEWER: Do you know why?

SPEAKER 4: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Why?

SPEAKER 4: I wrecked his car. I had an accident. I fell asleep at the wheel. I was driving my own car, and I hit his. He was parked. He wants too much money for the damages.

SPEAKER 5: Well, the situation is more or less-- he told me to get out. And when I did get out, he claims that I owed him money for the rent, and he didn't give me 30 days notice. And on top of-- I offered to pay him the rent, which he refused. So I said, I would let it go as far as going to court about it because I wanted to explain it to the judge and see what he come up with and whether he thought I should pay it or not.

SPEAKER 6: Well, a woman hit me in an automobile accident in January. And my insurance company and I have had trouble collecting. So we're here to get our money from her. She was uninsured at the time and also drunk.

SPEAKER 7: I'm collecting a few bills for some clients that haven't paid me, frankly. And we commenced the action in conciliation court, which has jurisdiction on these minor claims. And so I'm just attempting to collect a few bills that--

INTERVIEWER: I know this is a special session because most of those people aren't going to show up, right?

SPEAKER 7: Well, that's probably true, although I have no idea for sure how many of them will show up. Many of them have contacted me already and have either paid or expressed their willingness to pay, and so forth. We made arrangements, but otherwise, a few of them haven't contacted us, and so we're proceeding with it.

INTERVIEWER: What type of amounts are involved?

SPEAKER 7: They're small amounts ranging from $200 to $500.

BOB POTTER: That last man you heard is an attorney trying to get money from previous clients. He was at the courthouse for a special session of conciliation court. Usually, special sessions are held for collection agencies.

KATHLEEN MERRICK: We have agents or agencies will come in with a group that we'll put on. They have assignments on cases, maybe 75 at a time. And we'll just have one calendar just for them.

INTERVIEWER: Just for one credit agency?

KATHLEEN MERRICK: The judge doesn't even have to see them half of the time. Nobody ever shows up. It's just default cases all the way through.

BOB POTTER: We tried to interview several collection agency representatives for this program, but none would talk. One man from Credit Bureau Collections was filing a dozen claims at once and knew most of the clerk's office personnel by their first names. When asked if he would share his knowledge of conciliation court with us, he said, no, I don't want to get involved.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Little fella, little fella, graying hair, balding. Yeah, he's a Collection Agent, he takes assignments of bad debts from people and collects them for a commission.

BOB POTTER: Joseph Summers is a Ramsey County municipal judge, who sometimes handles conciliation court.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Conciliation court really is a collection agency's court. It's billed as a consumer court. But the last session, the legislature raised the jurisdiction to $1,000. There are very few consumers who have $1,000 claims.

It resulted in a situation where conciliation court is a very cheap way for loan companies, industrial loan, and thrifts, collection agencies, and whatnot to get default judgments against skips and so forth for $3. And if you were to just counting numerically-- just count the numbers, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that our biggest customers are creditors.

I don't know why there's anything wrong with that. Under Minnesota law now, you can't garnish somebody's wages unless you have a judgment. So we have to provide the creditors with an inexpensive way to get their judgments.

BOB POTTER: Defendants usually don't even show up for these collection cases. The defendant defaults or loses automatically. When one agency or person has many such claims, the clerk's office will arrange a special session of conciliation court, so all the claims can be handled at once.

In fact, with most defaults, a judge doesn't even hear the case. It is so automatic that a clerk handles the paperwork. And in most of these cases, even when the defendant does show up, he usually has no real defense. Then, as Judge John Kirby points out, there's little the judge can do, except to see that all the defendant's rights are protected.

JOHN KIRBY: Now, the interesting thing is to take a look at the-- what the balance is as compared to, what was the amount of the loan. And for example, you might get a person who in the original, may have borrowed $500 from the lending institution, and by the time we get into court and so forth with the interest and the loan costs and so forth, you'll find that this person may be paying in excess of 20% interest.

And I can only speak for myself, but I scrutinize the records that are brought in by the lending institution to determine if there has been any usurious interest charged. But if there's any overreaching on the part of the lending institution, I feel it's my obligation to look for it because the defendant is the one who's being collected against. And I think his interest should be looked out.

And I think in the same token, you're looking out for the interest of the lending institution, in a scene that they're doing it properly, or they won't collect.

BOB POTTER: Beyond that, however, there isn't much a judge can do even for the poorest debtor.

JOHN KIRBY: They may come in and use it as a defense that they can't pay, and the reason that they can't pay is because they lost their job. They assume that the loss of a job is a defense against a judgment, or that they've had to change employment, or they have been ill.

And these-- well, often, people think that these are defenses, these are legal defenses, where they are not. And this becomes very difficult to explain, and it's almost inexplicable to many people.

BOB POTTER: About all the judge can do is try to help the parties set up a reasonable schedule for repaying the debt. But most of these kinds of cases don't get to court. Last year, Ramsey County had over 10,000 cases filed in conciliation court. Hennepin County had twice as many. But perhaps over two-thirds of those cases were settled by default, and so, were never heard by a judge.

Many other cases which are filed don't reach the judge because the parties negotiate a settlement themselves. Sometimes that happens right in the hallway, just before court is about to begin.

SPEAKER 1: I was told to be here at 1:15.

INTERVIEWER: What's the issue involved?

SPEAKER 1: Plumbing bill.

INTERVIEWER: You were charged too much?

SPEAKER 1: No, I'm the chargee.

INTERVIEWER: What happened?

SPEAKER 1: Or the charger.

INTERVIEWER: What happened?

SPEAKER 1: Well, we did a job on this-- [LAUGHS]

INTERVIEWER: Gentleman?

SPEAKER 1: --this gentleman's house. This happens to be the guy I'm suing, but we're friends. We're buddies.

[LAUGHTER]

SPEAKER 2: Well, it's a bill, what it is. Yeah, man, I'm the defendant. And we had a disagreement on-- well, the new lavatory. I don't think it works right. He feels like it does, so--

[LAUGHTER]

I know it doesn't work right. I paid him $100 already, but he wants to dish $200, so we're trying to make a settlement right here.

INTERVIEWER: Well, lots of people do that.

SPEAKER 2: Yeah, well, he said he'd take $75 in cash. I don't have $75 in cash.

SPEAKER 1: $35?

SPEAKER 2: And $35 next week.

[LAUGHTER]

Then we can go home. Then we go home. I'll write you a check right now for $35.

SPEAKER 1: OK.

SPEAKER 2: Next week? OK. OK, there.

INTERVIEWER: Is your word good enough, Chris?

SPEAKER 2: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

BOB POTTER: But sometimes people do try to negotiate, and it just doesn't work out.

SPEAKER: She wanted to settle it out of court.

INTERVIEWER: And?

SPEAKER: But she wasn't driving her own car, a girlfriend was.

INTERVIEWER: All right.

SPEAKER: So she doesn't really know what happened. She wasn't there.

INTERVIEWER: She's willing to take less money.

SPEAKER: She didn't really say. She just said, she wanted to take me to court, and if we wanted to, she'd settle outside. And I said, nah, I'll go to court.

[GAVEL TAPS]

CLERK: Please rise. Conciliation court is now in session. Honorable John Kirby presiding.

JOHN KIRBY: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a conciliation court, as you all know. Basically, a Conciliation Court is a small claims court, where people can come into court and settle their claims against one another without the need of having an attorney. The jurisdiction of this court is limited to $1,000.

The only type of judgment that you can get against another person is in money, a judgment for an amount of money. You cannot get a judgment for a thing, or can you get a judgment ordering somebody to do a particular thing. The only thing that you can get is a judgment in an amount of money.

For the benefit of those of you who are here for the first time and possibly for a good review of the ones that are here, probably having been here before, we proceed this way, keeping in mind that this is not a law court. We do not follow the strict rules of evidence as you would in a regular courtroom. We do not follow the regular procedure, and so forth.

We will proceed this way. When your case is called, and your name is called, please present yourself before the bench. And if you have any witnesses at that time, bring them with you. If you have any exhibits-- when I say exhibits, I mean papers, objects, or whatever it is that you wish to show the court in the presentation of your case, be sure you bring that with you.

When you are before the bench, the clerk will swear you, and you'll be put under oath. And everything that you say after that will be under oath. And we will proceed this way. The plaintiff, that is the person who is bringing the complaint or the claim against the other, will present his case first.

When I say presenting his case, I will ask you just to present in your own way and in your own words why it is that you feel you have a claim against this other party for a certain amount of money. At the conclusion of that, the presentation of your case, then the defendant will be given an opportunity to speak in his own way and in his own words and to present his exhibits, and so forth, as to why he should not have to pay you the money that you claim, that he owes you, or that it should be a lesser amount.

If the defendant has a counterclaim, at this time, he presents his counterclaim against the plaintiff, in the same manner as the plaintiff presented his claim against him. And then in turn, if there is a counterclaim, the plaintiff gets an opportunity to respond to that counterclaim.

At the conclusion of this testimony, if there are any questions that the court has in mind to clear up any matters, these questions will be asked to the respective parties. Then the matter will be taken under advisement, and you will be notified by mail of the decision of the court within a week to 10 days. Will the clerk please call the first case?

CLERK: Furniture Barn versus Lowell Listerud.

JOHN KIRBY: Furniture Barn?

SPEAKER: Right here.

JOHN KIRBY: You're with Furniture Barn, is that correct? You're--

DARLENE: Darlene.

JOHN KIRBY: Beg your pardon?

DARLENE: Mrs. Listerud.

JOHN KIRBY: You're Listerud.

DARLENE: Yes.

JOHN KIRBY: All right, Mrs-- Furniture Barn versus Listerud, it's retail installment contract. You've had no payment, all right.

CLERK: I'll swear you in. You want to raise your right hands. You do solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give are all to the cause and under consideration. It shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

SPEAKER: I do.

DARLENE: I do.

JOHN KIRBY: All right. Go ahead, present your case, then.

SPEAKER: Well, I don't know, it seems that there's been a lack of payment in regard to this thing here. Here's the data on it here.

JOHN KIRBY: What was it that the party was supposed to have bought?

SPEAKER: Sofa chair and-- and returned to stock. I guess they exchanged it or something.

JOHN KIRBY: We'll just put on a time payment plan, is that what you're saying?

SPEAKER: [INAUDIBLE]

JOHN KIRBY: Do you have the sales contract there?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

JOHN KIRBY: Is that about it?

CLERK: All right.

JOHN KIRBY: Do I have to take a look at this sales contract? Is that your signature? Did you enter into that contract with the Furniture Barn?

DARLENE: Yeah.

JOHN KIRBY: They claim that you have not made the payments as you agreed.

DARLENE: That's right.

JOHN KIRBY: If it is, what's the reason why you didn't make the payment?

DARLENE: The reason why is because it's falling apart.

JOHN KIRBY: The furniture?

DARLENE: I bought it-- the furniture is falling apart. I've called several times regarding it. I've been out there. They wouldn't do anything about it. I said, well, I'm not paying anything until I receive a different set because I said the zippers are falling out of it.

The cushions, when you sit on one cushion, the other cushion falls over the other one. And when you sit down, we've got about this much space between the cushion and the arm of the davenport. And I said--

BOB POTTER: Judge Kirby was the first judge to let us in his courtroom with our microphones after first getting the consent of the parties. Prior to Kirby, only Hennepin County District Judge Susanne Sedgwick had permitted the broadcast media into the court. She did it for an NBC TV special on Divorce Court.

Only five states permit the broadcast media to record in the courtroom. Minnesota is still cautiously toying with the idea. Soon, the State Supreme Court is expected to let radio and television record its proceedings on a regular basis. And the State Bar Association is studying the issue of letting the broadcast media into the lower court trials. Judge Kirby has made a significant step in breaking the ice on this issue.

DARLENE: Well, I'll tell you how it started. In June, I bought a early American set.

JOHN KIRBY: This June?

DARLENE: Last June.

JOHN KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

DARLENE: And they sent me two different pieces. It took me from June to October to receive the other piece because they had to bring a different piece.

JOHN KIRBY: Pardon me. Was there an exchange paid here?

DARLENE: Pardon?

JOHN KIRBY: Because it says, pick up.

DARLENE: No, not at that time.

JOHN KIRBY: Pick up and delivery.

DARLENE: It was just a change. They didn't-- they bought me two different pieces. One davenport and one set of--

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

JOHN KIRBY: There's a certain amount of emotional charge.

DARLENE: So--

JOHN KIRBY: One of the things, I think, that a mistake that a conciliation court judge can make is to not let them go ahead and speak their whole saying. It's a kind of a catharsis. It's an opportunity where they can say everything that they have to say. And they project their feelings. And to shut them off is to frustrate them.

And so oftentimes, much of it is just listening and letting them go on, and say what they have to say and get it off their chest, even though you might fully-well have-- on the onset of the matter, just a few minutes, you know what the legal issue is and how the case will have to go, but keep letting them go on and have their full day in court. And so when they go out, they can feel that they've been completely--

DARLENE: And, so I had it a few months--

JOHN KIRBY: --heard.

DARLENE: And I called them back right away. And I told them that these cushions just are not right. They're falling-- the zippers-- the cushions are so thick that the zippers are tearing right out of the material. And the foam rubber is real bulky and it-- And when you sit down on it, you have the space between the arm and the cushions.

And when you're sitting on one cushion, the other cushion bounces right up. And the springs on the bottom of the davenport are just-- they're just lumpy.

JOHN KIRBY: Anything you want to say in response?

The first thing, I think, who doesn't necessarily irritate me, but who possibly is the poorest litigant in a conciliation court, is the one who tries to bluff or to present things that are not true or to deceive. He's not honest. He doesn't present his case honestly. There is no dispute between parties where one party is 100% right, and the other party is 100% wrong. This may occur on occasion, but it's very rare.

BOB POTTER: Similarly, there is no lawsuit which is too small for conciliation court.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: There is nobody who thinks that his lawsuit is unimportant. It may only be over a $19 bill, but if the plaintiff is a 12-year-old kid who's got a deadbeat that won't pay him for his paper route, I don't know by what right we claim that's less important than some gigantic anti-trust case. Important compared to what?

BOB POTTER: A few times a month, Joseph Summers will be the judge running conciliation court in Ramsey County.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: I think attorneys impede conciliation court. And I think most attorneys feel the same way, and they counsel their clients to just go in cold and throw yourself on the mercy of the court as it were.

DARLENE: All I want to do, you get your money back if I get a decent set. You'll get your money, and that's what-- this is the whole thing.

JOHN KIRBY: I'm not arguing about that. I think that's up to them to make it good if you're not satisfied at it. I can't say--

DARLENE: I called them. I've been out there several times. I've made phone calls to them several times. And they said that they've had so many exchanges. I said, well, then give me the right material, give me the right quality--

JOHN KIRBY: It's your understanding, then, that the furniture buyer will take the goods back?

DARLENE: They're taking it away from me because I haven't paid it.

SPEAKER: I'm sure they'd be glad to take it back if she would pay for, either that or exchange it.

DARLENE: I want to exchange.

JOHN KIRBY: I understand there's already been an exchange. Are you willing to take the furniture back?

SPEAKER: Well, I couldn't tell you that definitely because I'm not the manager, but--

JOHN KIRBY: Would you be willing to give the furniture back?

DARLENE: No, the exchange was because--

BOB POTTER: One issue occasionally raised in conciliation court is backwages. Many people don't know that if they are fired, they can demand their pay within 24 hours. If the money is not paid by then, the discharged employee may charge and collect the amount of his or her average daily earnings for 15 more days or until the backwages are paid.

A person who quits his or her job has similar rights, but they don't begin until five days after the demand for payment is made. That's a simplification of rights established by Minnesota Statutes 181.13 and 181.14. Conciliation court is designed to deal with these statutory claims, as well as more unusual claims.

KATHLEEN MERRICK: We've had what we're calling $3 divorce here with Judge Summers, referred to as a $3 divorce with these people that are breaking up that are living together, not married, and then they break up and have bought things together, and come in and file claims for-- they want their half of the money for the couch and the bed and tables, and all that they bought.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Well, really, a conciliation court, I don't like as much as a lot of other assignments. I usually have to get dragged into it kicking and screaming by the assignment clerk, but I always have fun once I get there. The case I can remember best was a good-looking young woman who claimed that her boyfriend of her roommate had let the plug out on her waterbed and flooded a whole bunch of volumes of Psychology Today, which she claimed to have a value of some $200.

And the kid's excuse was that the cork had just popped out when he was lying there taking a nap. And the girl responded by saying, that bed's had real hard usage, and the cork never popped out.

JOHN KIRBY: Are you willing if they took their merchandise back?

DARLENE: If they gave me another one, they'll get their money. They bring me a different set. I'm unhappy with the set.

JOHN KIRBY: All right, if they took their set back, you could go and get a set to someplace else.

DARLENE: If they give me my money back.

SPEAKER: How long have you had it? Since when?

DARLENE: Since June.

JOHN KIRBY: How much have you paid on it?

DARLENE: I paid $400 and some dollars cash.

JOHN KIRBY: And is it balanced during the contract of over $400?

DARLENE: And it came with a contract because I got a better set-- supposed to have been a better set was $200 more.

JOHN KIRBY: How much?

SPEAKER: $536 is the present--

JOHN KIRBY: It's over $200. All right, I'll take the matter under advisement. You'll hear from the court within a week to 10 days.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

BOB POTTER: We also talked to Judge Donald Gross. He said that decision making in conciliation court is relatively easy, even when two apparently honest people tell contradictory stories. He says the criteria he uses is the same which he tells juries to use in judging witness testimony.

DONALD GROSS: When you decide if the person has an interest in the case, whether they're related to the parties or an independent witness, their ability to know, remember and relate the facts, this is particularly important because people will testify to things. And you have to decide whether they're in a position really to know what they're talking about.

You look at the person's manner and appearance, his age and experience, whether a person appears to be honest or whether they're insincere, whether the testimony is reasonable or unreasonable, considering everything else. Sometimes testimony is impeached. There are probably other things that may come to mind that indicate to you whether you trust this person or not. For example, if a person has been convicted of several major crimes, there is a certain reluctance to believe them.

RALPH STACKER: Of course, I would want to tell you this too, as far as the judges, a lot of them in those days, if their politics was right, there were manipulations and elections. And we didn't have the--

BOB POTTER: 53 years ago, Ralph Stacker began to practice law in St. Paul. Today, he's a patrician of the community. Back when he started out, he tells us, decision making in the courts and in the community was much different than it is today.

RALPH STACKER: Well, for instance here. If you were-- this was always a democratic administration. For instance, years ago, we had a police chief by the name of O'Connor, who was-- that's even before I started to practice law. And if you were in with the party, Democratic Party, elections were crooked. They stuff ballot boxes. They bought votes. There were a lot of immigrants.

In those days, I didn't know what the hell is going on. And if they got a buck or two, the precinct boss would lead them over to the polling place and he'd mark up his ballot. He couldn't read or anything. He marked it the way he wanted it. And the result was if this fellow was a member of the Democratic Party or a friend of O'Connor, who was chief of police, and he wanted to be a judge, he was sure to be elected.

And they had Fellows that were highly incompetent and not honorable. You don't get those things now. You get somebody that's maybe less competent and more competent these days. But you had some bad ones. There were district court judges that didn't know what the hell was going on. They couldn't even read a case and know what the hell they were reading.

But you don't have that nowadays, see, with the publicity and radio and TV and everything. So judges got by with murder. Those days, for instance, Judge Final, hell, he didn't give a damn what the hell happened. He didn't know what the hell it was, whether he was on foot or horseback.

He knew less law. He was a judge maybe for 40 years. He was elected. He was part of the O'Connor machine. That's how he got in. And he knew less the day he died than the day he started to practice law, if anything. He never practiced. He was appointed judge the minute he got out of law school without a bar exam or anything.

INTERVIEWER: And there was obviously no recall, no way of--

RALPH STACKER: No recall.

BOB POTTER: Stacker says that today's system is different largely because of media scrutiny. And as everyone who reads Time magazine knows, Minnesota is now rather well-known for its clean politics, recent prosecutions notwithstanding. There's no Police Chief O'Connor today to run St. Paul, but judges will always be powerful members of the community. And they are still largely chosen by political parties or elite attorney organizations.

Today, there are several times as many judges as there were 50 years ago. And there are so many cases in Ramsey County that there are four clerks employed just to do judicial and calendar assignments. Judges take turns on different judicial assignments. One day, they may sit in conciliation court. The next, they may hear traffic and misdemeanor arraignments. The next day, they may start a long civil or criminal jury trial.

RALPH STACKER: In 1924, there was maybe three or four-- no, three district court judges. There were two municipal court judges. And one of the municipal court judges took care of conciliation court. That originated after my time-- after my commenced practicing law. And the municipal court judge would take an hour about every day from about 10:00 to 11:00. That's how the cases were.

He would take them. He'd hear them all, all the people over there. There's only one day, there was matters, which didn't take an hour or so. Even those are hearing, I can't to remember those days automobiles weren't so many, and they didn't have to have as many cases. But most of the time, between 10:00 and 12:00, the municipal court judge could hear all the conciliation court cases that were there.

Then they had a justice court at that time, where you had a justice of the peace, for he took care of all unlawful detainers. And those were our joke. I mean, it was-- if you were the plaintiff and you paid the fee of the justice, naturally, you'd win. Because for instance, the common joke is that the justice of the peace, who was-- he didn't have to be a lawyer.

Usually, he was an ignoramus, anyway, and the fellow that could get the vote and be elected. And the common thing was-- the joke of the thing is the justice of the peace wanted to act like a judge. He would say, he'd heard the judge-- the real judge make this remark, and he would follow up by saying, I will take this under advisement for three days, at which time, I will find for the plaintiff.

That was the common joke. He was acting very judiciously. He's going to give a thought, but he announced that he would find for the plaintiff. And we didn't--

BOB POTTER: That's Ralph Stacker, 53 years as St. Paul attorney. As he says, things have changed a great deal in those years. Today, as then, actual presentation of a case in conciliation court rarely takes as long as it has taken to tell you about it. And today, decisions are never made from the bench.

Litigants always learn the decision through the mail about 10 days later. And for 90% of the litigants, that's it. They've had their day in court They've won or lost, and it's over. Most of those who have lost money will pay willingly. With others, the winner sometimes must go back to the courthouse for help with collection. In Ramsey County, they go back to Kathleen Merrick's office.

KATHLEEN MERRICK: After the 10 days, if it hasn't been paid or reopened or appealed, then the prevailing party can come in and get an execution. They transcribe the case to the municipal court and get an execution, and then they can levy on the bank account or their wages or anything, actually, that they have. They can take a car.

INTERVIEWER: How do you get an execution?

KATHLEEN MERRICK: It's a matter of paperwork. The municipal court gives the execution to you, and then you take it to the sheriff in the county where it's going to be levied. Well, if it has to go into State Dakota County, it would be-- it's have to be transcribed from Ramsey County Municipal Court to Ramsey County District, and the execution's issued there, and then to, say, Hennepin County District Court, and it goes to the Hennepin County Sheriff.

You just come in here, and we actually do all the paperwork. And the municipal court is right next counter. So the municipal court would tape up the execution, give it to you. And you actually take it down to the Sheriff on the first floor. And then he would go out and levy it. But you have to tell him. He isn't going to go out and look for something to levy on.

INTERVIEWER: Do you have to pay any more money?

KATHLEEN MERRICK: Yes. There's a $7-- or $4 transcript fee, $3 for the execution, and then the Sheriff has fees. I think there's $7. Everything is added on to the judgment. So it can cost $22 or $23 more by the time they get through. Sheriffs get mileage fees and all.

BOB POTTER: Of course, some people are dissatisfied with their day in conciliation court, and they have the right to appeal their decision to a higher court. Even people who have lost by default may sometimes get their case reopened if they have a good reason why they didn't show up in court. Appeals cost another $15 or $25 and must be filed within 10 days after the conciliation court decision is mailed out.

Appeals from conciliation court are unlike most lawsuit appeals in that the whole case is heard over again, something called a trial de novo. This second hearing occurs at the county court level. In Hennepin and Ramsey counties, this is called county municipal court. County court judges also serve as conciliation court judges. They just take turns in the different assignments.

The proceedings are much more formal at county court. All the courts above conciliation court are called law courts because they use formal rules of evidence, formal presentation of testimony, and the like. In fact, any case which could be tried in conciliation court could also be tried originally in county court or sometimes even in district court.

It is in these jumps from one kind of state court to another that structural and jurisdictional differences become difficult.

RALPH STACKER: Well, for reasons best known to the legislature in which they're historic only, there are only two courts in the outstate counties, district court and county court. They have different jurisdictions. I can tell you more than you want to know what they are. The county court outstate has jurisdiction over divorce, juvenile, probate, commitments for mental illness or mental instability, or alcoholism, misdemeanor, criminal offenses, civil actions up to a certain figure, I think, $5,000, conciliation court and traffic court.

The district court has jurisdiction over everything else. I'm oversimplifying, but I don't want to take an hour going into the details. In Hennepin and Ramsey County, we have a probate court, which has jurisdiction over probates of estates and commitments of people for alcoholism and mental illness. We have a district court which is divided into juvenile, family, and general divisions.

The juvenile division runs a juvenile court. That's a separate operation. The family judge runs a family court. That's a separate operation. The district bench handles all the rest of the district court jurisdiction. We have a municipal court, which has jurisdiction only over misdemeanors, traffic offenses, conciliation court, evictions, and civil cases up to $6,000.

BOB POTTER: On top of that, there is the federal court system. And both the state and federal courts are less complicated than the federal, state, and local administrative authorities which handle more cases and settle more disputes than courts of law. We told you at the beginning of this broadcast that the program would describe the court structure in Minnesota. We really can't do that since the structure remains a labyrinth in spite of legislative efforts to simplify it.

Basically, there are three kinds of judges in Minnesota. That is, there are three kinds of traditional state judges ignoring for the moment the federal judges in the various administrative hearing officers. First, in Minnesota, we have Supreme Court justices, nine of them. They spend their time in serious deliberation of weighty legal issues which have been appealed to them from lower courts.

Second, there are district court judges, 72 of them in 10 districts, which hear big money claims and felony criminal cases and some appeals from lower courts. And third, there are county judges, over 100 of them in all 87 Minnesota counties, which hear money cases under $5,000 or $6,000 and misdemeanor criminal cases. Conciliation court is effectively just part of county court.

That's a gross oversimplification, but rather than going into further detail, we thought we'd give you a taste of the next higher level in the state court system.

[GAVEL TAPS]

Misdemeanor and traffic arraignments, one cool autumn morning in Maplewood, Minnesota.

CLERK: All rise, please.

[GAVEL TAPS]

Ramsey County Municipal Court is now in session. The Honorable Joseph Summers presiding. Be seated.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Ramsey County Municipal Court. Why don't those of you who aren't in the hall, come on in and sit down because I have to warn you about your rights and some other matters before court opens. We don't have a prosecuting attorney yet, but we'll-- oh, here he is.

MARTIN COSTELLO: Good morning, Your Honor.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Good morning, Mr. Costello. And when your name is called, come up front and stand in front of the bench. At that time, the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Martin Costello, will read the charge that's been placed against you. After the charge has been read, if you want some time to see a lawyer, all you have to do is ask, and we'll give you a week to see your lawyer and come back here.

If you're charged with something serious and you can't afford your own lawyer, you are entitled to be represented free of charge by the public defender. But if you want to see a lawyer, either in private practice or with the public defender's office, you must ask. If you don't ask for a lawyer, we'll assume that you want to go ahead by yourself and that you don't want to see a lawyer.

Now, you may plead either not guilty or guilty. If you plead not guilty, your case will be set for trial. At that trial, the state will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did what the state says you did. At that trial, you'll have the right to hear the witnesses testify. You'll have the right to ask questions of those witnesses when they're through testifying. That's what we call cross-examination.

You'll have the right to call your own witnesses, and you won't have to say anything if you don't want to. You cannot be required to testify against yourself in a traffic or a criminal case. If you do not want to plead not guilty, you may plead guilty. If you do plead guilty, I will ask the prosecutor to read from the police reports so that we both know the details of what the police say about your conduct.

I will ask you what you've got to say for yourself. And my sentence will be based upon what the police say and upon what you say plus your previous record, if any, If you have a good record, of course, it'll help you. If you have a record that's not so good, it won't necessarily hurt you. But of course, it's not exactly a plus factor.

Now, you should keep in mind, though, that if you plead guilty, you'd give up the rights that I mentioned to a trial. And you also admit that the charge is true. In other words, you admit you did it. And I will take your guilty plea as meaning just that.

I suppose what most people are most concerned about in this court are what's going to happen to them if they plead guilty or are convicted after a trial. Now, most offenses in this court are disposed of by means of a fine or supervised probation or some combination of those things. In appropriate cases, people are sometimes ordered to attend alcohol or drug treatment.

There are a few matters, which can result in a sentence to the workhouse. There aren't too many of those on the calendar this morning. If you are pleaded-- thinking about pleading guilty, but are concerned about whether you'll go to jail or to the workhouse if you do, ask me before you plead guilty, and I'll tell you. And then you can make a reasoned decision whether you want to plead guilty or whether you want to plead not guilty.

Now we're going to begin calling the cases. I would ask when you come up here that you please not lean on the bench and that you speak up so that I can hear you and my court reporter, who is taking down everything that's said, can hear you.

CLERK: On page 2, lines 12 to 15, Richard [BLEEP].

MARTIN COSTELLO: Good morning, Mr. [BLEEP]. On October 9, '77 in Maplewood, Rice, and [? B., ?] defendant is charged with driving while under the influence-- driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.1 or more. Those are both misdemeanors. Failure to change his address in his driver's license, petty misdemeanor, and possession of a small amount of marijuana, just bare possession, petty misdemeanor.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: What was the breath or blood test result?

MARTIN COSTELLO: It was a 0.12% breathalyzer test.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Mr. [BLEEP], do you want time to see a lawyer before you--

SPEAKER: I already have--

JOSEPH SUMMERS: --proceed further? Pardon?

SPEAKER: I already have a lawyer.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: What's his name?

SPEAKER: Mrs. Louise O'Neill.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Did she give you any instructions about what you should do this morning?

SPEAKER: She told me to plead not guilty.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Very well. Not guilty pleas have been entered. These matters will be consolidated on the jury pre-trial calendar. Now you get a pre-trial conference date from the clerk. And then after you leave here, you call Mrs. O'Neill and make sure that she knows the time and place of that conference. Thank you.

BOB POTTER: 50 years ago the arraignment you just heard might have occurred much differently.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: So judges got by with murder. I know when I started practicing in the municipal court here, that was during prohibition, you see. And the most profitable law business was bootleggers were in there. And they hauled them into municipal court . And there was a certain judge that was a very good friend of mine. I could just about write the ticket as to what punishment she did. I would.

But nothing a matter. Just he knew I was a friend of so-and-so. We got friendly, and I go into court some day with 10, 12 cases, at 9:00 downstairs in the present jail, just where it is now, and have 10, 12 cases heard in less than 15 minutes. And if a fellow was in for four or five times, the judge would turn to me and say, Ralph, what do you think we ought to do with this fellow? He's been in a lot of time.

I think Judge, I'd say, this fellow, if you gave him 10 days, he'd be lucky because of what he-- well, I think that you're right, Ralph. My gosh, we'll give him 10 days. I mean, that's the kind of justice they were dishing out. And there was big money in it in those days. 1924, I'd sometime end up with $1,000, $1,500 for an hour's work.

You go down to the police court and had 10 bootlegging cases where I got $100 and $150, and $200 just for appearing there once. So I mean, that's the way-- and even in district court, you got in, we had a lot of incompetent judges because the machine would get behind him, get him elected. They were unknowns and/or they'd be appointed if some vacancy occurred, where you call-- the question was, were you a Republican or a Democrat?

BOB POTTER: Plea negotiations today are usually a bit more open.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Charges, DWI over 0.10 on September 30, charges, misdemeanors. Do you want those charges read by the prosecutor?

MR. SMITH: No, Your Honor.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Noted. How does your client wish to plead?

SPEAKER: Your Honor, Mr. Smith and I have already reviewed this file. At this time, if the court is willing to amend the charge of driving while under the influence--

JOSEPH SUMMERS: I don't know if the court has, Mr. [INAUDIBLE]

SPEAKER: The prosecution is willing to amend the charge, driving while under the influence, to careless driving to my understanding that he's going to enter a plea on that basis.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: What was the breath test reading?

SPEAKER: 0.14, Your Honor.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: What are the circumstances justifying the reduction of the charge?

SPEAKER: He appears to have been speeding--

MR. SMITH: On 35E.

SPEAKER: --on 35E and 36.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: No aggravated driving--

SPEAKER: No aggravated driving.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: I'll accept that.

SPEAKER: They are pulling him over, but--

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Mr. Smith, if the charge of driving while under the influence is amended to a charge of careless driving, will your client plead guilty?

MR. SMITH: He will, Your Honor.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Mr. [BLEEP], the charge of driving while under the influence is amended to a charge of careless driving. Do you understand that on that charge, you have the right to a trial by jury at which the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you--

BOB POTTER: Plea negotiations occur today sometimes in open court, sometimes in closed chambers. Judge Summers asserts that while there may be negotiation, there is no plea bargain.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: There is no bargain. First of all, the police overcharge. You stop for drunk driving. You end up charged with driving while under the influence, driving with 0.10% or more blood alcohol, careless driving, speeding, no left rear tail light, open bottle, and disorderly conduct.

Now it's understood by all the players, except the poor defendant, that it's all going to go away if he pleads guilty to drunk driving. That's assumed. It's not a bargain. That's the prosecution's openers are those eight tickets. So when you come down to talking, what the defense wants to know is, Judge, what will you do if he pleads cold to driving while under the influence, or they want to know if the prosecution thinks it's got such a weak case they'll reduce it to careless driving.

Now the reason I think that's bad to call this a bargain is that the defendant isn't contributing anything, except his guilty plea. The defendant's only bargaining power is his capacity to go to trial. And with the public defender system, particularly, there are practical constraints on that.

The public defender doesn't have enough people to take all his clients to trial. The prosecution doesn't have enough prosecutors to try him. And we don't have enough judges to hear the cases. But that lends with equal vigor on all three sides to the alleged bargain.

BOB POTTER: Plea negotiation is one of the more complex and controversial aspects of court operation. And we can't do much more than mention it here. Another serious problem raised by all this discussion concerns the traffic tickets themselves, specifically tickets for drunken driving.

Alcohol is involved in half of all fatal highway accidents. At certain times of the day, it is estimated that over half the people on the road have been drinking. Drunk driving is possibly a more violent act than the most vigorous aggravated assault, yet most people don't really consider it a crime.

That last defendant you heard was permitted to plead to a lesser offense, but he still will be evaluated for alcoholism. If he continues to get in such trouble, his driver's license will be suspended. And maybe he'll eventually see the inside of the workhouse. But the courts can't deal with everyone who has his problems, and they can't solve the problems of the people who do get caught.

In spite of what the courts do, alcohol will remain now, as it was during prohibition, the major death drug in America. And traffic offenses of all kinds will remain the most common items handled by the court system. The courts handled over 170,000 traffic matters last year in Ramsey County alone. So only a very small percentage of traffic citations ever get to court. And usually, those are the worst or the most unusual incidents.

SPEAKER: Good morning, Mr. [BLEEP]. Thomas [BLEEP] is charged on the 25th day of October, 1977. He's seen in North St. Paul, was speeding 101 in a 55, a misdemeanor.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: How do you plead, sir, guilty or not guilty?

THOMAS: Guilty with reason.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Well, let me hear what the police say. Then we'll see what you got to say.

SPEAKER: The fine was clocked at 101 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone. He was clocked by the vehicle and verified by radar. Defendant never denied speed stated. He was in a hurry to help a friend who was getting beaten up. He had a young lady in his vehicle, no driver's license in possession. Green Mustang going to Vo Tech. Past record includes a careless at 74.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Mr. [BLEEP], what's your side of this?

THOMAS: Well, I was-- I don't know, I was-- well, I went to this bar, Timothy O'Toole's, and I was down there with a friend. And he told me if-- asked me if I'd stick around because this one guy was really giving him the eye because he was playing pool with his old girlfriend. So I stuck around, and then this kid left. So then me and my friend left.

And I was waiting for this girl to come out. My friend drove away. And all of a sudden, the bouncer at the bar, he's a friend of mine, came running out and told me that this guy had followed Scott, my friend, out of the parking lot and was going to catch him when he got to his apartment. Apparently, he'd been talking about it at the bar, and this guy heard about it.

So I-- I went racing to catch Scott before he got home. And that's how I did--

JOSEPH SUMMERS: What happened to Scott? Did the guy follow him home, and did he beat him up?

THOMAS: He followed him home, but he didn't beat him up. He got in his apartment, and they was a buzz in her apartment, so he never got in.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Well, next time leave the vigilante stuff to the police or else, drive slower. Where do you work, Mr. [BLEEP]?

THOMAS: I am currently not employed. I go to school at 916 Vo Tech.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: 916 Vo Tech, what are you taking up there?

THOMAS: I make artificial arms and legs and braces for prosthetics and orthotics.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: For people who go 100 miles an hour. Well, do you have any source of income at all?

THOMAS: Well, my folks.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Because I just can't ignore 100 in a 55. I'm reasonably forgiving.

THOMAS: I realize that.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: The fine on this charge is $50, which is half what the fine schedule calls for. It's $50 or one day. Now, how long do you think it would be before you could pay that?

THOMAS: I could pay it today.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: OK, pay the clerk. Thank you.

THOMAS: Thank you.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: I should explain, for fines, we do accept personal checks, if anybody's concerned about that. Nobody hardly ever gives us a bad check, so.

CLERK: On line 12, Carrie [BLEEP]. It's an AA [INAUDIBLE]

JOSEPH SUMMERS: You know anything about Mr. [BLEEP]?

CARRIE: No, I don't. The probation office called this morning, and they related that they didn't expect him to show up. He has never cooperated with any program. He's been in other courts. He evidently had not been to the orientation class because they don't have a card on him.

JOSEPH SUMMERS: Cash bail is stricken or is forfeited. We'll issue a bench warrant on both charges. Bail on the bench warrant fixed at $100.

For instance, there was a certain lawyer, Barnacle, his name was, he knew nothing. He was a shoemaker. And in those days, you could read the law, and if a lawyer certified that you had read the law in his office for a year or two, you could get a bar or be admitted to the bar. This Barnacle, as a matter of fact, his son-- his grandson was a cab driver. I ride with him often, so I talk about his grandfather.

He'd wore a frock coat, little guy with a long frock coat. And he became a lawyer. So his-- and he couldn't talk English, didn't know what the hell it was all about. But he couldn't see in that hole where they kept the prisoners. See, they take them out from the jail and bring them downstairs. In those days, the county jail was connected to it and through some tunnel. I don't know how the hell they brought him in there, but it was just a hole, no lights or anything.

And I'll tell you another story about that no lights. So this Barnacle would get there every morning. It opened 9:00. And Barnacle couldn't see who was there. Any used guys need a lawyer? He would holler out. And when-- he would appear for them for a quarter or a half a dollar, or whatever they had on hand.

And you appeared whatever they had, once you got down here, for $1 or $2 sometime. Lucky if they had $10 bill, just bum--

BOB POTTER: We hope this program has given you a taste of how the lower court levels of our state system work and of how you might be treated if you should have occasion to use them, also, how you might have been treated had you used them 50 years ago.

This program has been produced at Minnesota Public Radio by Bill Tilton with engineering assistance from David Felland. Funds for this series are provided by the Minnesota State Bar Foundation and the Nash Foundation. We'd also like to thank Ron Bushinsky. Laurie Engstrom. Janet Paulson, Bob Sher, and Gayla Waldenzak for their assistance. This is Bob Potter.