2024 Judicial Race

2024 Minnesota 6th Judicial District Judge Election

LEAN interviewed the two candidates, Gunnar Johnson and Shawn Reed, about  pre-trial bail, police perjury, racial disparities in the justice system, and other issues. We’ve recorded, transcribed, and summarized the hour-long interviews to facilitate community engagement in this race. Quotes were edited for length and readability, with the goal of relaying the candidates’ answers as they were intended.

Navigation

What makes a good judge?

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson emphasized creativity as a crucial trait in a good judge, and cited his experience working with students at UMD as an example:

“You have to be hardworking. Because [...] good justice requires a lot of hard work, and looking at the facts, and talking to people. And carefully examining all evidence and understanding the entire picture of what's going on, and that's not easy. It takes some creativity. You know I looked through your list of questions, and really the answer to most of your questions in my mind is, sometimes you gotta be a little creative.”

“I get all kinds of kids with all kinds of situations. [...] They're individuals in their twenties that get into situations, and every one of them has a different background and a different story. And in that case with my work that I do with them, what I find is most important is listening and gathering where they're coming from, what their motivations are, what they're trying to avoid and what works with their life.”

Shawn Reed

Reed stated “patience, empathy, humility, and probably as equally important [...] as all those other traits is just having a slight sense of humor.” He explained:

“It's usually not a good time when you're in court. So a good judge needs to have empathy, they need to have patience, they need to understand that people probably aren't in the right headspace, and they're emotional, they're upset, they're scared. As a judge you need to take the time to make sure that if— if you need to slow things down, you slow it down. Try to get them in the right headspace. Make sure that they understand what's going on. And so that really leads into the ability to communicate.”

“I've encountered judges, not in this district, but in other districts who have a bad case of what I would call “robe-itis”. You know, people that feel like they're self important just because they've got a fancy choir robe. That's not humility, and it doesn't serve the community well, or justice well if it's about the judge. It's about the people that come before them.”

“You have to have a sense of humor. You just have to. I mean, we all do [...] in regular life, too. But if you can't find the small moments of joy and humor. Quite frankly, we’d all go a little bit crazy.”

Judicial Reforms

We asked the candidates what, if any, judicial reforms they support.

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson stated that while the justice system can and should always improve, he emphasized that he is not an activist and that he is not coming to this role to fix the system:

“I'm not coming into this as an activist in any sort of way. I am going to be part of the judicial system. [...] I'm not going to go in there with some sort of preconceived notion that I am smarter than everybody else there, and that I know how to fix the system. I don't. I have a long background of experience working with the Attorney General's office, working with the city of Duluth, working with Hermantown, working with police departments and fire departments. I bring that background to the table, but I don't necessarily know how to fix the system. [...] We can always get better. We always have to innovate. We always have to change. I am not coming in to lead that, I'm coming in to be part of the system. I'm going to do my job in the trial court as a judge, in listening and dealing with the cases that come before me as best I can with my experience and background.”

Shawn Reed

Reed discussed judicial reforms that he supports at the federal level, and stated that he thinks Minnesota is doing a good job with state-level judicial ethics:

“[T]here really needs to be some ethics standards, some enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court. And quite frankly, it makes absolutely no sense to me that there isn't. [...] Unless I'm mistaken, I think all, all the other supreme courts at the State level throughout the United States, all have codes of conduct that are enforceable. I know, in our state. If you're a judge, you can be removed, and so it only makes sense that we all have ethics rules. [...] I know there's talk about packing the court. [...] I think that might be a little bit of a political football there, which I don't think we need more politics injected into our court system. Term limits, though, I think, is something that is a little bit more palatable, and probably not subject to politics. But so, in answer to your question, I do support reforms. I do support reforms at that federal level.”

“I think, from my perspective at a statewide level. Certainly in this district, I think we're doing a pretty decent job about policing the judges.”

Campaign Funding

LEAN asked the candidates how their campaigns are being funded.

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson explained that although he put some money into his campaign at the beginning, his campaign is not self funded. He says most of his funding comes from people he has worked with in the past and community members. Because of campaign finance rules, he is not privy to who the donors are.

Shawn Reed

Reed stated that he is self funding his campaign, in addition to taking donations.

Pre-Trial Bail

Noting that the pre-trial bail system can exacerbate wealth-based inequalities in the criminal justice system, LEAN asked the candidates how they plan to address inequalities in this system and set reasonable bail.

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson explained that he will follow the court system to evaluate each case individually, and does not intend to reform bail.

“I'm not coming into this position saying, I'm here to reform bail. This is an issue that's going on at a policy level across our country [...] whether you agree with the way the courts are run or not, as a judge, I'm not here to - I'm not going to be some sort of rogue judge. I'm going to follow what the court system tells me to do, what the legislature tells me to do, and what the higher courts tell me to do.”

“[Are] there inequalities in the pretrial bail system? Certainly, there can be. And certainly, like you said, different people have different abilities to afford bail. And it can be…It can trap certain people where they're stuck. [...] But everybody's different, like we talked about. [...] I don't have a plan for setting reasonable bail. I will look at the individual and the equity of the situation, and try to set it in a way that's fair for everybody. There's the, you know, you're protecting the interest of the state and the public security, and you're also looking at the rights of the individual, and those need to be weighed.”

Johnson was asked a follow-up question about arrests made at times court was not in session. He stated that he is aware of this difficulty but believes that it would be out of his control as a judge:

“I’ve seen that for many years. That's the worst time to get picked up is Friday evening, because there's no judge till Monday morning, and Monday morning, it takes a little bit of time for the court system to get rolling. I can't, as a judge, impact that, because I can't come in on Saturday afternoon and look at these cases because the court isn't in session. It's just not set up. That's honestly - that's a systems question above me.” 

Shawn Reed

Reed highlighted the necessity of communication, addressing each case individually, and “ensuring a person's right to be released, whether it be through a bail setting or making sure they can have pretrial release, and also addressing community safety concerns.” He explains: 

“...If a person doesn't have the economic means, the pretrial release program - it's not based off of economics - but it gives a person the opportunity to get out without paying or posting bail. But it does require a person to sign a pretrial release contract, which I believe that's not a bad thing to me. A pretrial release agent can be another means of support for a person, you know, a contact with the system to provide answers. ‘What do I do next?’ ‘Who do I get a hold of?’ ‘I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be doing this, that or the other thing,’ they're always your first point of contact.”

Reed was also asked about arrests that are made at a time when court is not in session and how this is handled. He stated:

“We've got a process in place that every night, every weekend there, there should be a judge on duty, right – and their job is to review what's called probable cause arrests, right – And so, if you're booking someone in jail, typically you're going to have to complete what's called a PC, probable cause application. And I think that's typically required if you're going to put someone [in jail.] And two things typically need to happen with the probable cause application. Number one [...] under our rules, prosecutors are supposed to approve the probable cause application. So, in other words, I should be getting –I don't get enough of them – but I should be getting calls in the middle of the night from officers saying, ‘Okay, we just arrested this person. Here's the probable cause that we have for the arrest’. They typically will read it to me or give me the rundown, and then I'll give a yay or nay. I'll answer back questions. I'll say ‘well, it seems a little bit light here. Can you answer that question?’ And if it's not there, you say, ‘Okay, well, cut them loose and we'll look into it later.’ Or ‘Yep, it looks like you have enough PC’ and then what they're supposed to do is [...] say ‘reviewed PC with the prosecutor’ [and] put in the time [on the required form]. Now that doesn't always happen because either [the police] forget or sometimes I don't hear my phone... it's a dual responsibility.”

Domestic Abuse No Contact Orders (DANCO)

We asked the candidates how they would equitably determine who gets an order for protection, a harassment restraining order, or a DANCO, and if they would be willing to decline to issue a DANCO when previous judges may have issued one even when the victim objects to it being issued. We also asked if they would be willing to honor victim requests to modify or lift a DANCO voluntarily.

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson emphasized that every case is different, and stressed the importance of balancing public safety with individual rights:

“It's gonna [...] depend on the specific situation because I don't wanna say some sort of broad generalization. [...] [T]here's protecting the women or the victims [...] - it's not always women, but it typically is- is critically important to the court, to the safety, and that's an important thing to factor in. I also know that these harassment, restraining orders, and DANCO’s - sometimes they can be issued very quickly [...] it has negative implications on the person that has the restraining order as well as the victim, and every case is different. Sometimes you have a victim, based on the dynamics of the relationship, where he or she may be saying, ‘Please don't issue this DANCO or this harassment restraining order,’ but if you look at the totality of the facts, that might be the right thing in that situation. [...]”

“‘Would [I] be willing to honor a victim's request to modify our lift of voluntary DANCO?’ Possibly. I certainly would consider it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to do that. If a judge is issued a DANCO, that carries a lot of weight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to make the same decision. [...] Again, it's a job in which you have to gather a lot of facts, have a good understanding of the individuals involved, and weigh those different equities or public safety versus the individual's rights.”

Shawn Reed

Reed started his answer by talking about the differences between an order for protection, a harassment restraining order, and a DANCO, and emphasized that it’s important to treat each case individually:

“It depends on the type of the order because they're each different. For example, with an order for protection or harassment restraining order. You can grant those ex parte. And so, in other words, the person may get an order on the top end, right, but the person does have a right to have a full evidentiary hearing as to whether or not that order should stay in place. So we got to separate those two out from the domestic abuse no contact order, because there isn't an evidentiary hearing component to that. The judge can just order that as [a] condition of release. [...] I've dealt with them from all angles, and they definitely serve their purpose. [...] How would I equitably determine? So it's based again off of the evidence. [...] I don't think you can ever make a blanket determination like lean pro victim or pro defendant, or anything like that. I think that's the wrong thing to do as a judge, you know. Look at it individually.”

Reed then addressed the issue of DANCOs directly, and discussed the importance of victim advocates:

“Certainly the victim's input needs to be considered when you're making the decision. [...] I'm hesitant without having information from [...] a victim advocate to just agree to lift something, because I don't know who's been talking to the victim. I don't know if the victim’s there under duress, or if someone [in the] family is putting pressure on a person to say, ‘Hey, you have to go there, and you have to say that’ [...] I might be more likely to leave it in place then, because I don't have enough information about that. [...] Once a victim has met with a victim advocate away from perhaps family and people that might be pressuring him or her. They've gone through a safety plan. They know what to do. If something else continues in those cases, as a prosecutor, I'm more willing to support that request. That DANCO will be lifted. Because we have that information. We know that the alleged victim has information and help if needed.”

Reed also discussed some ways in which DANCOs can negatively affect victims and their families:

“I'm usually always supportive if there's if there are children involved to having DANCO’s lifted to the extent [that] it's safe for everybody, or modified so as to permit some sort of level of communication [...] to talk about issues relating to the children, and maybe arranging visitation, or whatever supervised or otherwise. So you don't ever want to see orders like that preventing families from, you know, parents from seeing children unless there's safety concerns. [...] When you have orders for protection in particular or DANCO’s that really talks about unhousing somebody, because usually people that are in domestic disputes usually live together. [...] We don't wanna create a situation that makes it worse, right? ‘Cause if we're unhousing somebody usually that doesn't lead to stability, and more instability you have in one's life, it tends to lead to more issues.”

Police Perjury

We asked the candidates about the growing body of evidence that police perjury is a widespread problem in the criminal justice system, and how they would hold law enforcement accountable when it becomes clear that they are not telling the truth.

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson discussed his experiences representing the Duluth and Hermantown police departments, as well as his expectations for police in the courtroom, but did not go into detail about actions he would take to prevent police perjury:

"Well, this may be shocking, but not everybody that goes to court tells the truth. And you know, it can certainly happen with police. I have represented a lot of police over the years. [...] I did criminal appeals on behalf of the state. At the city attorney's office in Duluth, we represent the police department of Duluth. I did that for 12 years. I am now the Hermantown City Attorney, and I represent the Hermantown City Police Department, and I've done that for 3 years or 4 years. [...] Would I hold them accountable If it was clear that they were not telling the truth? Yes, I would. And I would expect them to, you know, just tell the truth, as I would expect anyone to tell the truth."

Shawn Reed

Reed provided some historical context of the 1972 Giglio v. United States Supreme Court case and handling evidence of police misconduct. He outlined his expectations of people testifying in court and how he would handle a situation where it became clear that someone was not telling the truth:

"Prosecuting attorneys have to disclose misconduct on part of police officers, right. So it's not necessarily the perjury aspect of it but it's related. [...] If I become aware of [information about] a police officer that might address issues with his or her credibility, I have an affirmative duty to turn that information over to the defendant.”

“My view of the world is that when people come to the court into the courtroom, you're expected to tell the truth [...] If I became aware of somebody not telling the truth, well, then they're going to – they face the same potential consequences that anyone else does, you know, we might have to stop a hearing. I would call the attorneys into chambers and have a conference, and I would disclose to them what I believe just happened right - ‘I believe that an officer just lied in open court under oath.’ [...] Because now I think I'm in a position where I have to take some steps affirmatively and possibly either stop that witness from testifying further and or, maybe both, also give a curative or corrective instruction to the jury so it doesn't taint the further process. And you might be at such a point where a curative instruction might not help. It might be an option and you have a mistrial type situation. And in criminal cases, it's the defendant's right to have that fair trial and you got to guard that very cautiously.”

Withholding Evidence

In September of 2020, then-Carlton County attorney Thomas Pertler was disbarred for withholding evidence of police misconduct from a trial. The St. Louis County attorney has been accused of the same thing. We asked the candidates how they would address misconduct of this kind if they were elected.

Gunnar Johnson

Johnson stated that he “[has] no knowledge of the Saint Louis County Attorney being accused of withholding evidence in a police misconduct matter [or] police misconduct for trial.” He discussed his work on clarifying Brady policy and the importance of disclosure. 

“So this is an impeachment question, and - I've worked with the St. Louis County Attorney's office in redoing their Brady policy, and I haven't done that, but I've reviewed it with them and talked about it as it impacts the Hermantown City Attorney's office or the Police Department. I have reviewed files to make sure that we're complying with Brady and those rules… I've spent a significant amount of time on this. It is not as black and white as it might seem. And so we - and I, in my position, have tried very hard to make sure that we are in compliance with these rules and requirements. There's constitutional law here, constitutional rights. This is a very high standard…we want to make sure we're performing to a high standard, and certainly, it's a case by case matter. It goes to the fairness of the trial. How would I address misconduct? We're gonna follow the rules of disclosure that are required by Brady and the cases that come after it that interpret how that disclosure is supposed to go and the extent of that… that's an important part of the prosecution process, and I'm gonna make sure that that happens If I'm the judge.”

Shawn Reed

Reed talked about a Judge’s responsibility to police their courtroom, citing the ability to pull lawyers into chambers to talk further, and determine if the non-disclosure can be remedied.

“In the prior question I mentioned Brady Giglio […] as a prosecutor we have incredible authority and the weight of the state behind us […] and we have an obligation to make sure that the process we’re participating in is fair. That means we have to disclose all the information that’s pertinent whether we think it’s relevant or not. [As a prosecutor] I'd rather err, you know, 100 times on disclosing too much and have the case be unsuccessful as a prosecution versus winning a case by not disclosing things.”

“As judges, it is fundamental that the courts are policing their own cases and making sure that discovery disclosures are being made. If they’re not being made and that comes to your attention I think you have to stop the trial […] have some chambers conferences with the attorneys involved, and make a determination whether or not the non-disclosure can be remedied."

Disproportionate Impact of the Justice System

We asked the candidates how they would measurably improve the disproportionate impact the justice system has on marginalized groups, including homeless folks and people of color, and how they would restore community confidence in the justice system.

Gunnar Johnson 

Johnson started by talking generally about the importance of applying justice fairly:

“My job is to make sure that justice is fairly applied… [to ensure] that no one is wrongfully convicted, that their rights are protected, that the safety of the community is protected, that people are held accountable […] Everybody comes from a different background, has different life experiences. Those are critical to understanding and applying justice. It’s important that […] the judge is evaluating an individual with a different background, rather than just a cookie cutter person that's appearing before them.”

Johnson was asked if he has any particular strategies to do this, and he gave a recent example from his work with the Housing Redevelopment Authority. 

“I couldn't see the individual because we were doing it [on] zoom, but he had technological issues where he only had a cell phone and there was no picture. So I don't see race, but I get a sense that he was a minority individual. He had some mental health issues that made it more difficult for him. He struggled to organize a little bit, and so, the attorneys on the other side were getting a little frustrated that it was taking longer than it was expected […] we let him run downstairs with his cell phone, knock on a neighbor's door so he could get the witnesses that he felt would support his testimony.. even though that's kind of pushing the rules a little bit. But in that case, I think it was important for him, in his feeling of justice and for the process, to take a little bit extra time, to bend over a little bit more to allow this person to make the presentation that he felt was important in presenting his case. And, we did that because he was an individual with certain things that were different than other individuals that we've dealt with in those types of hearings. We made different accommodations - I think he felt better that he hadn't been railroaded into not being heard or not being able to tell his side of the story, and, you know, that's how I've handled it in the past.”

Shawn Reed 

Reed believes it all comes down to how you treat people and how you communicate with them. 

“I think how change happens is on an individual basis and so I think the way you first start is the way you communicate. So, if you've got a defendant or even a, let's say it was a civil matter party plaintiff, a little harder to imagine that case, but you have to make sure that the people that are before you first of all. Are they okay, right – are they in the right headspace? [You’ve] got to make sure that they're doing fine, that they're understanding what's going on with them right now, because if they're not in the right headspace or they're not ready to really understand what's going on, it's very difficult to proceed forward in a fair way so if they're not ready – right – then maybe you need to try to get people in contact with the resources that we have within our communities.” 

Reed also gave a recent example from his work: 

“I'm thinking right now of a fairly young man, like 19, something like that, and he was representing himself, and he appeared in front of the judge... But the judge, after we handled his case, the judge took a moment to talk to him on a personal level, because somehow during the conversation, the defendant mentioned something about him getting back to work or whatever. And so the judge asked him about his job or what his interests are and what his goals are. This was a kid that had not yet graduated from high school. He was going to go for his GED, I knew that because I talked to him before. The point is the judge took time to talk to him about that, and showed some genuine interest in him, and… instilled a little sense of pride in what this guy had been doing already for his age and then I was walking out of the courtroom right behind this person and I overheard him talking to who I think was his significant other, and he said ‘I've never had a judge talk to me like that before.’ And that stuck with me, and I made sure next time I saw the judge I shared that with the judge, because I think judges need that kind of feedback… I'd like to hope that he went home and talked to people and said ‘I went to court and, you know what, that judge took the time to talk to me.’ And the way you change things is one step at a time, it's one person, one case at a time. And you hope that you have a positive influence or positive effect on those that are working with you, working around you, and that's what I would do. So it comes down to how you treat people, and you got to treat people with respect.”

Judicial Race Interview Transcripts

Interview with Gunnar Johnson

What makes a good judge?

Time: 00:00:01 → 00:02:16

LEAN1: We'll get started ready, everyone ready. What do you think makes a good judge?

Gunnar Johnson: Well, there's I think there's a lot of things that make a good judge and…it's a it's a position where you have to be smart. You have to be hardworking. Because they're…good justice requires a lot of hard work, and looking at the facts, and talking to people. And carefully examining all evidence and understanding the entire picture of what's going on, and that's not easy. It takes some creativity. You know I looked through your list of questions, and really the answer to most of your questions in my mind is, sometimes you gotta be a little creative. Different people come to the court with different backgrounds and different life situations. And there's not a cookie cutter approach to dealing with everybody. And I deal with, I represent students at UMD. And so I get all kinds of kids with all kinds of situations. They're not necessarily kids. Sometimes I show my age with that. But you know they're individuals in their twenties that get into situations, and every one of them has a different background and a different story. And what's, in that case with my work that I do with them, what I find is most important is listening and gathering where they're coming from, what their motivations are, what they're trying to avoid and what works with their life. I haven't been a judge before. I've been a hearing officer before. But those qualities are gonna be important in the different roles, too. So you know. That's kind of a long, winded answer to your question, but that's kind of what I see as the main traits of a good judge.

LEAN2: Thank you.

Judicial Reforms

Time: 00:02:17 → 00:04:52

L1: What if any judicial reforms do you support?

GJ: I thought a little bit about that question. I'm not coming into this as an activist in any sort of way. I am going to be part of the judicial system. I'm not here to make…I'm not, as a trial court judge coming in, I don't know what needs to be…I'm not going to go in there with some sort of preconceived notion that I am smarter than everybody else there, and that I know how to fix the system. I don't. I have a long background of experience working with the Attorney General's office, working with the city of Duluth, working with Hermantown, working with police departments and fire departments. I bring that background to the table, but I don't necessarily know how to fix the system. I agree that our system…if we get to the point where we're like, “can't get any better,” then you need to step aside. We can always get better. We always have to innovate. We always have to change. I am not coming in to lead that I'm coming in to be part of the system. I'm going to do my job in the trial court as a judge, in listening and dealing with the cases that come before me as best I can with my experience and background. I will participate in the judicial system where there's committees that look at things like I've done in the past. Of people coming to court, and they end up sitting for 4 hours before their hearing. That's almost more difficult than the hearing, because they need to get childcare. They need to get out of work. They need to park. It's just, transportation. It gets to be a lot for them. And that's–things like that can be fixed so that it's more efficient. That doesn't mean the judicial system is changing, or that they're not getting judged in however, the court's going to judge them. But it's less of an inconvenience on their lives. And that's important as we try to make this efficient and effective for all. So that's kind of been my background. I'm gonna try to be the best judge I can. But I'm not here to run the judicial system.

L1: Alright.

L2: Thanks.

Campaign Funding

Time: 00:04:53 → 00:07:28

L1: How are you funding your campaign?

GJ: My campaign. So as a judicial candidate, I can't really get into the funding, so I have a campaign committee and a treasurer. And they have handled the fundraising and the campaign finances. But it is not self funded. I put some money in at the beginning. But that's–the funding has really come from people that I've worked with in the past, people in the community, donations that that have come in from individuals. And I'm not privy to that information, because that's the rules of the judicial campaigns, is they don't want somebody to give a thousand dollars and then to expect me to have some sort of different…lose my unbiased ability to judge them or their family members or their business, and so I don't know the specifics of where the donations have come from.

L1: Right.

L2: So I was not aware of that. So judicial campaigns have different funding rules than, like, the Council campaigns or or Senate campaigns? I've worked on theirs, and there's not that wall between the candidate and the funding information.

GJ: Yeah. And there is that wall in the judicial.

L2: Okay.

GJ: It's important, because it's really…they're nonpartisan. So you're not Republican or Democrat, which is very important. We look to Wisconsin, and we see what happens there. Not a good situation. So that's very important. And we want to keep the judiciary unbiased. And we've seen that in other states where big money comes in to influence judges. And you know, I'm not a Supreme Court Justice or a Court of Appeals Judge. I will be a trial court judge if that's, if I'm elected as such. But every judge in the system, whether it's at the top of the courts or at the bottom, as a judicial officer, needs to be unbiased, and the…Minnesota does a nice job of protecting that, and I have been very diligent about following those rules.

L2: Thanks.

L1: Thank you.

Pre-Trial Bail

Time: 00:07:29 → 00:10:23

L1: The pretrial bail system can exacerbate wealth-based inequalities in the criminal justice system. For example, people with more resources are often able to pay bail, while people with fewer resources might have to remain in jail because of their inability to pay the same bail. How will you address inequalities in the pretrial bail system? Do you have a plan for setting reasonable bail?

GJ: So like I said earlier, I'm not coming into this position saying, I'm here to reform bail. This is an issue that's going on at a policy level across our country. I've seen it. My sister is a judge in Arizona and I've seen Arizona is much stricter and more, I would say, punitive almost, than we are in Minnesota. And whether you agree with the way the courts are run or not as a judge I'm not here to, I'm not going to be some sort of rogue judge. I'm going to follow what the court system tells me to do what the legislature tells me to do, and what the higher courts tell me to do. I'm not going into it with any sort of preconceived notion that I'm gonna do something different than what I'm allowed to do. Is there inequalities in the pretrial bail system? Certainly there can be. And certainly, like you said, different people have different abilities to afford bail. And it can be…It can trap certain people where they're stuck. They can't get out of jail because they can't afford the bail. They can't get the bail's bondsman and that type of thing. And it's, there's many different reasons. Some people have family that will do it. But everybody's different, like we talked about. And do I have a plan for setting reasonable bail? I don't have a plan for setting reasonable bail. I will look at the individual and the equity of the situation, and try to set it in a way that's fair for everybody. There's the, you know, you're protecting the interest of the State and the public security, and you're also looking at the rights of the individual, and those need to be weighed. Every case is going to be different. We're going to have to look at the individuals. But that's all I can tell you at this point, is I understand the issue. But I can't make some sort of broad statement that I'm going to do this or this because I need to know the specific facts of what we're talking [about].

L1: Totally. Yeah. We appreciate your honesty.

Issuing a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO)

Time: 00:10:24 → 00:16:40

L1: How will you equitably determine who gets an order for protection, a harassment restraining order, or a DANCO? Would you be willing to decline to issue a DANCO when previous judges may have issued one, even when the victim objects to it being issued? Would you be willing to honor victim requests to modify or lift a DANCO voluntarily?

GJ: Yeah, this is a good question. My answer is gonna be, again, similar that it's gonna determine, depend on the specific situation because I don't wanna say some sort of broad generalization. I was the Duluth City Attorney for 12 years. And I left about the same time, it sounds like, you guys started your organization. And so, I dealt with a lot of the issues that I think, I sense your organization is interested in - worked with the Homeless Bill of Rights, did homeless court, there’s been a number of things I've worked on, and this issue that you're talking about here today with DANCO’s and harassment orders is one that we struggled with as we prosecuted the cases that came before the City Attorney's office like the domestic violence cases. And you know, there's protecting the women or the victims, and they - it's not always women, but it typically is- is critically important to the court, to the safety, and that's an important thing to factor in. I also know that these harassment, restraining orders, and DANCO’s - sometimes they can be issued very quickly, and I've dealt with students, as I talked about my time at UMD, where they come to me, and they're like, “I have a harassment order against me, and you know, I wish I had told the judge more,” and and they start to explain their case, and I'm like, more information wasn't going to help you it, but it does - it has negative implications on the person that has the restraining order as well as the victim, and every case is different. Sometimes you have a victim, based on the dynamics of the relationship, where he or she may be saying, “Please don't issue this DANCO or this harassment restraining order,” but if you look at the totality of the facts, that might be the right thing in that situation. So I don't know - I can't say, you know, let's see what your question is: “Would you be willing to honor a victim's request to modify our lift of voluntary DANCO?” Possibly. I certainly would consider it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to do that. If a judge is issued a DANCO, that carries a lot of weight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to make the same decision. If the victim, and this was a little bit confusingly worded in your question, but even the - if the victim objects to it being issued, so if the victim doesn't - if the victim doesn't want it that doesn't necessarily mean that we're not going to issue it, but it is something that I would take into consideration. Again, it's a job in which you have to gather a lot of facts, have a good understanding of the individuals involved, and weigh those different equities or public safety versus the individual's rights, to make a decision that works, and that's what I'm going to be asked to do. I don't know, I can mumble more, but that's kind of how I intend to handle those cases.

L2: Thank you.

L1: Maybe maybe I'll try, like, rewording the question, and you can tell me if it would yield the same answer for you. But like, would you be willing to speak about like, the circumstances or situations in which you would consider lifting the DANCO?

GJ: Situation where I would consider lifting the DANCO.

L1: Maybe that's too hypothetical.

GJ: It is. I mean - I wish I could give some sort of real concrete answer for you, but it's just not that way, and there is certainly a possibility that I would lift the DANCO, but you know, that's there's gonna be - it's possible, but there's gonna be a lot of cases where that doesn't happen.

L1: Yeah.

GJ: And you know, it's - oftentimes I would err on protecting the victim, and these are very dangerous cases, and, you know 99 times out of a hundred, everybody's safe, but there is situations, and I've seen them, and I've worked with it where people – things go really bad, and that's important. And it's also important, so I had a case today where it wasn't a DANCO, but it was a harassment case, and it's very important to keep these parties apart during this very stressful time. And that's what I told the individual, the male that I talked to today, I said, make sure you stay away from her and her friends no matter what. And there was no harassment order, but that's important to making a bad situation not get worse. And so, I - anyway, that would be my answer to that question.

L1: Okay, yeah, thanks for the additional answer.

Police Perjury

Time: 00:16:41 → 00:18:30

L1: There's a growing body of evidence that police perjury is a widespread problem in the criminal justice system. An example is widespread perjury in the New York police department. How will you hold law enforcement accountable when it becomes clear that they are not telling the truth?

GJ: Well, this may be shocking, but not everybody that goes to court tells the truth. And you know, it can certainly happen with police. I have represented a lot of police over the years. I have - at the attorney general's office, I did criminal appeals on behalf of the state. At the city attorney's office in Duluth, we represent the police department of Duluth. I did that for 12 years. I am now the Hermantown City Attorney, and I represent the Hermantown City Police Department, and I've done that for 3 years or 4 years. And so, I've worked with a lot of police. I understand not everybody tells the truth all the time. Would I hold them accountable If it was clear that they were not telling the truth? Yes, I would. And I would expect them to, you know, just tell the truth, as I would expect anyone to tell the truth. There's a high standard for police, because their testimony can put somebody in jail for a long, long time, and so it's important we get that right, so.

L1 & L2: Thank you.

Withholding Evidence

Time: 00:18:31 → 00:21:18

L1: In September of 2020, then Carlton County Attorney, Thomas Pertler, was disbarred for withholding evidence of police misconduct from a trial. The St. Louis County attorney has been accused of the same thing. How will you address misconduct of this kind if you're elected?

GJ: I think it's Tom Pertler?

L1: Yeah

L2: Don’t know how to -

L1: Yeah, excuse my mispronunciation.

GJ: It's okay. I have no knowledge of the Saint Louis County Attorney being accused of withholding evidence in a police misconduct matter - a police misconduct for trial. I have worked on Brady issues. So I think this is a question related to Brady?

L2: Yeah, our original notes had that. Yes, yes.

GJ: And so this is, it's an impeachment question, and it's- I've worked with the St. Louis County Attorney's office in redoing their Brady policy, and I haven't done that, but I've reviewed it with them and talked about it as it impacts the Hermantown City Attorney's office or the Police Department. I have reviewed files to make sure that we're complying with Brady and those rules. it is - I've spent a significant amount of time on this. It is not as black and white as it might seem. And so we - and I, in my position, have tried very hard to make sure that we are in compliance with these rules and requirements. There's constitutional law here, constitutional rights. This is a very high standard. Want to make sure that we're performing to a high standard. And certainly, it's a case by case matter. It goes to the fairness of the trial and how would you address misconduct? We're gonna follow the rules of disclosure that are required by Brady and the cases that come after it that interpret how that disclosure is supposed to go and the extent of that. But that's an important part of the prosecution process, and I'm gonna make sure that that happens If I'm the judge.

L2: Thank you.

Racially Disproportionate Impacts of the Justice System

Time: 00:21:19 → 00:31:36

L1: How will you measurably improve the disproportionate impact the just - the justice system has on marginalized groups, including homeless folks and people of color? How will you restore community confidence in the justice system?

GJ: Well, remember The justice system, It's a whole system, and the judge is one piece of that system. I don't select the people that come to the court. My job is to make sure that justice is fairly applied. Especially - I think you guys are talking mostly about the criminal side - but that no one is wrongfully convicted, that their rights are protected, that the safety of the community is protected, that people are held accountable. Those are all the things that come into your mind as you're working through justice. So I'm not here, as I talked about the beginning, to fix the system, saying, I can only hear - I will hear the cases that come to me and are brought by the judicial system. It's - as I talked about early on in this discussion, everybody is different. Everybody comes from a different background, has different life experiences. Those are critical to understanding and applying justice. I see this in the work that I do for the HRA. I'm a hearing officer for them, and people in HRA housing are often poor - often minority populations, mental health addiction. Those issues are very prevalent in the cases that I've heard. And it's not easy, but you have to go out of your way as a judge to understand the whole situation, and to make sure that the person can be represented, typically oftentimes by themselves, or they have an attorney, maybe legal aid, maybe public defender in the cases that you're talking about. But it's important that they're well represented, that justice is applied fairly, that they understand where things are in the process, and that the judge is evaluating an individual with a different background, rather than just a cookie cutter person that's appearing before them. And that's what I'm gonna do. And that's not an easy job, it's going to take work, it's going to take talking to people, it’s going to - it has a stressful side to it, but I'm gonna do that. And I was I was talking to - I met a guy last night, Tim Wilson, who's new with the Chum Center, and we talked a little bit about these exact same struggles that you're talking about. People that are homeless - if you issue a big fine on them, what does that do? if you put them in jail - I'm not sure what that - how do you - how do you affect change so that these issues are not coming back to the community. But you're putting the person in a position to succeed rather than get caught in the net of the judicial system that will pull them down. That's not what we want.

L2: Thanks. I really appreciate what you're saying and have been saying throughout about looking at individual cases, and really looking at people as individuals, and I have just a couple of follow up questions kind of along those lines. First, would you be willing to talk about some of your strategies for making that happen? What kind of questions do you ask? What kind of, like, external circumstances do you look at to gather that information when you're making those decisions?

GJ: Well, so I guess the best examples I could give are the cases I do with the HRA. and I had a recent case, in which the individual was, well, I couldn't see the individual because - it was - we were doing it [on] zoom, but he had technological issues where he only had a cell phone and there was no picture. So I don't, you know, I don't see race, but I get a sense that he was a minority individual. He had some mental health issues that made it more difficult for him. He struggled to organize a little bit, and so, in that case, the HRA, the attorneys on the other side were getting a little frustrated that it was taking longer than it was expected, and we let it go a little bit longer, we let him run downstairs with his cell phone, knock on a neighbor's door so he could get the witnesses that he felt would support his testimony, to testify, even though that's kind of pushing the rules a little bit. But in that case, I think it was important for him, in his feeling of justice and for the process, to take a little bit extra time, to bend over a little bit more to allow this person to make the presentation that he felt was important in presenting his case. And, that was - we did that because he was an individual with certain things that were different than other individuals that we've dealt with in those types of hearings. We made different accommodations - I think he felt better that he hadn't been railroaded into not being heard or not being able to tell his side of the story, and, you know, that's how I've handled it in the past.

L2: Thanks. And then just one more follow up question. You were - well for me, and then maybe others have some, too - you were talking about how things, like, with unhoused folks, giving fines is not really useful, putting them in jail often is not really useful, and you you were talking about just looking for better solutions for those types of situations. I was wondering if you could talk just a little more about what you see those as being? Maybe some cases you've worked on in the past where better creative solutions were found, or worked on. Is that something you can talk a little more about?

GJ: Yeah, yeah, I mean, so at the city attorney's office, these - those were the cases that we prosecuted: we did about 10,000 cases a year, and they're the little things that happen oftentimes in downtown Duluth. Police get called out to a matter, they issue tickets, our office would prosecute them. I brought in an individual and hired her as a Nuisance and Blight Prosecutor for downtown Duluth. That woman is now a judge on our court, Judge Neal. And I really respected and enjoyed working with her, and it's just like we talked about. You've got somebody with mental illness, poverty, homeless, and they're picked up for something, let's say public urination, or something like that, that the public in general does not appreciate when people are urinating in public and that's fair, and we don't want that conduct in public. We want to try to prevent that further, but assessing that person a $500 fine probably doesn't do a whole lot there. And so, putting them in jail or giving them probation may not help a whole lot, either. And so there's - we took a little bit more holistic approach, tried to work in social work, tried to work with downtown, you know, organizations like Chum and that type of thing that to not only adjudicate the cases, but also try to put these people in a position where the public's going to be - not have that conduct going forward, but they can move to a more stable situation. We were not successful in all the cases, but we were successful in some of them, and those victories we really appreciated and celebrated.

L2: Thanks.

L1: Thank you. Yeah, I don't have any follow up questions. [LEAN 3], do you have any? We got [LEAN 3] and [LEAN 4] on the call.

L2: Hi [LEAN 4].

GJ: Hey, [LEAN 4].

Held in Jail Over the Weekend

Time: 00:31:36 → 00:34:09

L3: So, my - this may be about the bail more, so something that LEAN members have heard from some people, some Duluth community members is that they'll get arrested, maybe, like on, like, on a Friday evening or on, you know, on the weekend, and they'll be held in jail until Monday, when they're released without any charges that end up getting filed against them. So, as a judge, like, what control do you have in a situation like that or - and working with the police in that way. What can you do?

GJ: I've seen - I've seen that for many years. That there's not - when you get - that's the worst time to get picked up is Friday evening, because there's no judge till Monday morning, and Monday morning, it takes a little bit of time for the court system to get rolling. I can't, as a judge, impact that, cause I'm I can't come in on Saturday afternoon and look at these cases because the court isn't in session. It's just not set up. That's honestly, that's a system - a question above me. And I had cases, I've had clients where they might have a traffic ticket that's not paid, or some sort of collection matter that you can - there's ways that people can get a warrant against you, and so they get - they're speeding on Friday afternoon, they get picked up and they spend the weekend in jail. It happens, and it's not fun. So, I guess that question, it's more of a process of the judicial system than it would be of me as a judge.

L3: Thanks.

GJ: Thank you. Well, I appreciate you guys talking to me tonight, and I respect the work you're trying to do. It's very important to our community. And so, good luck with using this video, and if you guys can, get out and vote wherever you vote.

L1: Well, thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

L2: Have a good night.

Interview with Shawn Reed

What makes a good judge

Time: 00:00:01 → 00:04:06

LEAN1: Okay, I guess I'll ask the 1st question, which is, What do you think makes a good judge?

Shawn Reed: Well, I think I'll start with what the only requirement is in the State of Minnesota, and that's to be “learned in the law”, which basically means you— you know stuff about the law, and that's really not enough in my book to me to be a good judge.

You need to have certain traits, and those traits include on top of everything, I think, is patience, empathy, humility, and probably as equally important— important, as all those other traits is just having a slight sense of humor.

So the reason I talk about patience and empathy is, for this particular job, you're going to likely see people when they're having their worst day. I know that because I'm in court all the time I see people who are having their first appearances or whatever. It's usually not a good time when you're in court. So a good judge needs to have empathy, they need to have patience, they need to understand that people probably aren't in the right headspace, and they're emotional, they're upset, they're scared. 

As a judge you need to take the time to make sure that if— if you need to slow things down, you slow it down. Try to get them in the right headspace. Make sure that they understand what's going on. And so that really leads into the ability to communicate. So that's key. But you need to have patience, and you need to have empathy.

Humility to me is very important. The job about being a judge is not about the person itself. It's really about the people that appear before that person. I don't know if either of you have ever had the privilege of having to go to court or not, and maybe don't, [laughing] don't answer that question. But I've encountered judges, not in this district, but in other districts who have a bad case of what I would call “robe-itis”. You know, people that feel like they're self important just because they've got a fancy choir robe. That's not humility, and it doesn't serve the community well, or justice well if it's about the judge. It's about the people that come before them.

And then, lastly, you have to have a sense of humor. You just have to. I mean, we all do in all— in regular life, too. But if you can't find the small moments of joy and humor. Quite frankly, we’d all go a little bit crazy. So those are the traits I think you need to have to be a good judge. And I I don't know how are— are the two of you familiar with some of our past judges here in the district? Because I, I think you're all you're pretty much all from the Duluth area, I believe. Correct?

LEAN2: Yep

SR: Okay and, and so I'm gonna blend this question over a little bit into kind of like the mentor question. There is one judge that kind of comes to mind, and I only talk about retired judges, for all the obvious reasons, but I think if I didn't say it, we, we do have good judges on the bench here. But the, the judge, I look to a lot if, if I had to choose one as a mentor would be retired Judge Floerke. And Judge Floerke had a real good temperament about— a good judicial demeanor. He had a way of talking where, if you walked in the room and you're, you're stressed, you're scared or whatever, the way he would communicate with you usually would kind of bring things down.

And that's what you need. You need to kind of de-escalate things first and move, and that helps move things along. But he also had the ability to drop the proverbial hammer if you weren't acting appropriately or not observing decorum, things like that. So does that answer your question sufficiently? Do you have follow up or need more information?

L1: I think that's great. 

Judicial Reforms

Time: 00:04:07 → 00:07:41

L2: So our next question is, what if any judicial reforms would you support or have you supported? 

SR: Well, I haven't supported any publicly in the past. I'm not aware of any current– at least any large pushes for judicial reform here in the State of Minnesota. I know that there's a lot of talk about judicial reform on the Federal level, and for that there, there are a couple that come to mind that I would be supportive of. There is controversy in the United States Supreme Court. Has been for quite some time but recently, with all the issues, with Justice Thomas and Alito, there really needs to be some ethics standards, some enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court.

And quite frankly, it makes absolutely no sense to me that there isn't. I think if I'm– unless I'm mistaken, I think all, all the other supreme courts at the State level throughout the United States, all have codes of conduct that are enforceable. I know, in our State. If you're a judge, you can be removed, and so it only makes sense that we all have ethics rules. I know in my profession there are ethics rules that govern us as attorneys, and there should be ethics rules that govern the top court, and I think we need that in order to, you know, restore, or at least attempt to restore the public's view of it. I mean, I've been studying constitutional law now since, oh, was it 92?

I remember my constitutional law professor up at UMD. I think he'd be rolling over in his grave right now if he, if he even had an idea what was going on. Never in my wildest dreams would, did I think we'd come to this kind of state. But here we are. So I think, I think there's been legislation that, that’s– I think it's passed on the Federal level, but I don't think anyone's taken any action on it with respect to some ethics. I know there's talk about packing the court. I think that might, I don't know enough about that. I think that might be a little bit of a political football there, which I don't think we need more politics injected into our court system.

Term limits, though, I think, is something that is a little bit more palatable, and probably not a subject to politics. But so, in answer to your question, I do support reforms. I do support reforms at that Federal level.

I think, from my perspective at a statewide level. Certainly in this district, I think we're doing a pretty decent job about policing the judges.

Did that answer your question? I'm probably gonna ask you that every time to make sure that I've, that I’ve fulfilled, and then allow you guys to ask me follow up questions, too, because I'm certainly not opposed to you guys following up, even though it's not on your list of questions.

L2: No, thank you. That feels good. Go ahead, Lean 1.

Pre-Trial Bail

Time: 00:07:42 → 00:15:30

L1: So, the pretrial bail system can exacerbate wealth-based inequalities in the criminal justice system. For example, people with more resources are often able to pay bail, while people with fewer resources might have to remain in jail because of their inability to pay the same bail. How would you address inequalities in the pretrial Bail system? Do you have a plan for setting reasonable bail?

SR: When this I think that kind of gets down to one of my original comments; that it starts with communication, and each case has to be handled on an individual basis. We do have a constitutional right to have bail set, and there's a number of things that go into factoring the level and amount of bails.

I certainly don't think that bail should be ever set on your background, or your race, or anything like that. I think what we need to be looking at, and I, I believe this is generally the truth, and I hope this doesn't show any naivety on my part, but I know we look at the seriousness of the crime, weigh public safety against that, look at the person and their criminal history, and really, what we're trying to do is make sure— What can we do to ensure that they're going to appear at their next court appearance. So you got to look at all those things, you got to talk to the defendant and their counsel.

I know that I've had the privilege of sitting through a lot of bail arguments with our defense bar, and in particular our public defense bar does, or I'm, I'm, I'm always impressed by the arguments that they make, and I make sure when I hear one I always pull the attorney aside and then say “that was a real good argument,” because they they really do work hard.

So there's also a thing called Pretrial Release, which I'm a big fan of the Pretrial Release program. So if a person doesn't have the economic means, the pretrial release program— And it's, it's not based off of economics, but it gives a person the opportunity to get out without paying or posting bail. But it does require a person to sign a pretrial release contract, which I, I believe that's not a bad thing to me. A pretrial release agent can be another means of support for a person, you know, a contact with the system, a contact with— to provide answers. “You know, what do I do next?” “Who do I get a hold of?” “I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be doing this, that or the other thing,” they're always your first point of contact. The one thing that strikes me about court, and we gotta do better [sic] job about this, I think, is this perception that at court everyone's just out to get everybody else, you know. If you're, say you're in— from a defendant’s standpoint and, and I understand why that general feeling is there. It's not universal, though.

I know from my experience in large part for some of the issues that we're dealing with, we want to help people. I'll give you an example that maybe doesn't fit the bail example all that well, because bail usually isn't a factor. Say, like, in license cases, it can be but people a lot of times won't come back to court to deal with longstanding license issues because we're— they're worried that we're just gonna drop a hammer on them, right, and, and fine them a whole bunch of money.

And that's not been my experience. And that's not just my own personal, it's across the agencies we wanna help people, want to get people in so we can try to get them off that merry-go-round of, of being unlicensed.

But I think I digressed a little bit there. Oh, bring it back to the point. So I think the pretrial release is another option. And it can be a good resource. I try to look at the stakeholders and the various players as, more as resources, necessarily, you know, than just opposition. And I can— I do that probably easier than people that are on the outside because I'm on the inside. But I, I do both prosecution and defense work. So I'm always trying to find the resources. So, so to answer your question. I think it was, “Do you have a plan for setting reasonable bail?”

Well, the plan would be to address each case individually, and make sure that we're paying attention to the substance of what's before us, and not what I would call the surface, and make sure that we're ensuring a person's right to be released, whether it be through a bail setting or making sure they can have pretrial release. And also addressing community safety concerns.

Followup: Considering Income

L2: Thank you. I'll take you up on a follow up question.

SR: All right! Bravo!

L2: So, just so I have a, a really clear understanding, would you take someone's income into consideration when setting bail?

SR: Well, I think that, I think that is a factor. No, I don't know how often the judges will look at it, but I I think that's a, that's a fact, right? It's, it's— we certainly take a person's income into consideration when we're appointing public defenders. And that's a right. That's a constitutional right guaranteed by both Minnesota and US Constitutions.

So along the same lines as we have a right to bail or a right to have release status addressed. I think that's a factor that should be considered there, and— but recognizing that some people are going to have the ability to pay their way out, and that's, and that's not fair. So I think if you have, if you have the, if the only disparity is, you got the same— You got 2 people similarly situated committing the same crime, except one has the means and the other does not. It's, it's— that's a real good example of just fundamental unfairness. The one person is forced to stay in jail because they can't pay their way out. 

So I think the pretrial release contract is a good alternative as well, but that I do recognize that puts a little bit of an onus on the person, because now they're possibly reporting in. So it's not a perfect result. So again, what I think it comes down to is, it comes down to examining each case on a, on a case by case basis. I've long said to everyone as a prosecutor. There's no such thing as a cookie cutter case. So cases should not be treated the same, and that comes up because some offices will have policies where they will not do plea negotiations on certain cases. For example, like, county attorney's office and DWIs. They don't even talk plea agreements. They just say, “Nope, you can plead straight up.” And I have a problem with that because, again, that's assuming that every case is the same. And again, you have to look at each case, each defendant on an individual basis and treat them with fairness and respect.

L2: Thank you. 

Campaign Funding

Time: 00:15:31 → 00:16:24

L1: How are you funding your campaign?

SR: We are taking donations in, but largely stating— we're self funding our campaign. And when people ask me, “Dear God, why are you doing that?” I'm doing that because it's— I think it's so vitally important that the people of the 6th Judicial district get a judge that has experience, knowledge, and will be ready to do the job right away. So, we're taking in donations. We'll do that all the time, obviously following the guidelines and the election rules and otherwise self funding.

L2: Thank you. 

DANCO

Time: 00:16:25 → 00:28:57

L2: Now we are on to asking about how you will equitably determine who gets an order for protection around domestic violence, harassment, and restraining orders for DANCOs. Would you be willing to decline to issue a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order, if that was something that the victim requested. And if it already was issued, would you honor their request to modify or lift it?

SR: Okay, well, that that's a real good question. And there's multiple questions in there. So I do have it up next to me. So I can try to address each one. So the 1st part of that is, how would I equit equitably determine who gets an order for protection, harassment restraining order, DANCO, and I think the answer to each of those. It's. It depends on the type of the order because they're each different. For example, with an order for protection or harassment, restraining order. You can grant those ex parte. And so, in other words, the person may get an order on the on the top end right, but the person does have a right to have a full evidentiary hearing as to whether or not that order should stay in place. So we got to separate those 2 out from the domestic abuse no contact order, because there isn't an evidentiary hearing component to that. The judge can just order that as condition of release. So with respect to the orders for protection, harassment, restraining order. You know, again, I'm gonna sound a little bit like a broken record because it I keep coming back to - you’ve got to look at each case individually, but in this part, for these types of cases even more so, because, they're they're very dynamic. When you have harassment, restraining orders and orders for protection, there's lots of a lot of emotions involved a lot of moving parts you know. Obviously, I deal with orders for protection, and DANCO’s as a prosecuting attorney, also as a defense attorney, and I've dealt with them in a private capacity, as well, representing both people as petitioners and as respondents. So I've dealt with them from all angles, and they definitely serve their purpose. But the question is, let me make sure I get it right here. How would I equitably determine? So it's based again off of the evidence. Right? You have to. Well, 1st of all, if it's ex parte, you're not taking evidence, and you're looking at the petition right? And so you got to keep an open mind when you're reading petitions, because it's like the old saying goes, there's 2 sides to every story, and usually the truth lies somewhere in between. Because we all look at things that carry our own baggage and our own lenses or lens that we've looked at live through. So it's probably somewhere in between. So you gotta keep an open mind when you're looking at the order for protection petition or the harassment restraining order, petition and then make a determination whether or not they've at least alleged sufficient facts. If you accept it as being true to rise to the level of whether or not there was domestic violence present in the case of an order for protection, or in the harassment restraining order. If there was a either a pattern course of conduct that rise level of harassment, or a single incident of assault or sexual assault. So you gotta you gotta look at those carefully and recognize that you're only seeing part of the story. On the other hand, you also you gotta keep an eye in mind with safety as well right, and so knowing that you know that the party has a right to a hearing if they choose to elect for one or choose it right away. The other thing. With respect to the Hros and the of peace if you don't, you gotta also check to see  if they've what options they've selected on their application. If they've chosen the option if it's denied, do they still want a hearing, because you gotta keep that in mind. You gotta keep the process in mind as well. So, again, broken. Record a little bit, but gotta go back and look at things on an individual basis, and make your decision. I don't think you can ever make a blanket determination like lean pro victim or pro defendant, or anything like that. I think that's the wrong thing to do as a judge, you know. Look at it individually.

The next question on that one was, would you be willing to decline to issue a DANCO when previous judges have issued one? And then it's a second part to that, too, or even when victims object. So the the first, st the 1st answer, the 1st part of the question is, would I be willing to decline the issue of DANCO, when judges may have issued one before I'm interpreting that question as prior judges issuing one in a separate case, because typically the DANCOs will follow the defendant throughout the life of the case unless it's dismissed. So that's the way I'm reading your question. And the answer is simply, Yes, if even if other judges have let's see it was, have issued DANCO’s in the past. Those are different facts, different cases.  I may not know what those facts are in that case, and those cases aren't wouldn't be before me. The case that's before me would be the one that the DANCO application is being sought right, the prosecutor, or whoever when they make their bail request. So you got to kind of you got to look at those facts. I certainly think that some of the prior history is going to come up during the bail or the DANCO argument, but it's the facts that you got to look at, or the facts of the case, so the long or short answer to the rambling answer is, yes. If if a judge has issued one before, and it's the facts just aren't there? In the current case. If the facts are right, I would certainly decline. I'm not afraid of disagreeing with people.

The second part of that was even when a victim objects to it being issued. And that's kind of that's kind of relates to your last part of the question. Would you be willing to honor, victim, request to modify or lift a DANCO voluntarily? But I I think they're they are different. So at the I interpret your. The second part of that second question is being if a victim was present in the say at Arraignment court or at the 1st appearance and is objecting. Certainly the victim's input needs to be considered when you're making the decision.

One thing I'm particularly sensitive to as a prosecutor. I'm gonna show more on my prosecutor side right now is that sometimes I don't know I'm hesitant without having information from like a victim advocate to just agreed to lift something, because I don't know who's been talking to the victim. I don't know if the victims there under duress, or if someone family is putting pressure on a person to say, Hey, you have to go there, and you have to say that you don't want a day go so sometimes. The so the answer the second part of the second question, sorry about this.

that's how I treat it so. If a victim were to show up and object to being issued at the time. I might be more likely to leave it in place then, because I don't have enough information about that.

That's a good segue into your last part of the question, which is, would you be willing to honor victim requests to modify or lift a DANCO voluntarily, and in that again, that's you're in a little better position at at that time, because I'm interpreting your question as being. That's once a victim has met with a victim advocate away from perhaps family and people that might be pressuring him or her. They've gone through a safety plan. They know what to do. If something else continues in those cases, I'm as a prosecutor, I'm more willing to support  that request. That DANCO will be lifted. Because we have that information. We know that the alleged victim has information and help if needed. So the other thing I'll say about all of them orders for protection, harassment, and DANCO’s. I'm usually always supportive if there's if there are children involved to having DANCOs lifted to the extent, it's safe for everybody, or modified so as to permit some sort of level of communication, usually in writing civil communication, using only the King's English to talk about issues relating to the children, and maybe arranging visitation, or whatever supervised or otherwise. So you don't ever want to see orders like that preventing families from, you know, parents from seeing children unless there's safety concerns. So that was a long, rambling answer to to a question that had a whole bunch of questions in it. So I did. I answer all the questions to your satisfaction.

L2: Yeah, absolutely.

L1: Yeah, to give you a little background. We did talk with a local public defender when we were thinking of questions to ask, and that was something that got brought up is like children involved. Another thing would have been like, people becoming homeless because they have to leave, they can't live in the same residence. So yeah, just a little background on where we got the questions.

SR: Well, and that in that that last point you brought up. That's also a very important thing to keep in mind, too, because when you have orders for protection in particular or DANCO’s that really talks about unhousing somebody, usually because usually people that are in domestic disputes usually live together, not always the case. But I think that's something that courts have to keep in mind, are we? True? We don't wanna create a situation that makes it worse, right? Cause if we're unhousing somebody usually that doesn't lead to stability and more instability you have in one's life, it tends to lead to more issues. So I think that's also a fact that we gotta talk about when we're making those types of decisions. One, I guess that's a I'll add one other point to that, too, and that relates back to the to the children. Comment. You know, part of my practice is dealing with family law. So I deal with high conflict, custody issues and stuff, and, you know, being unhoused leads to a lot of instability. Not being able to communicate, receive one's children, particularly if there's not a safety issue also leads to an awful lot of instability in the family unit and leads over into the community. So to the extent that we can prevent unnecessary instability. That's something we need to take a look at in every case. So I think that's that's my final answer. Unless you guys have more.

L1: Thank you.

Police Perjury

Time: 00:00:28:58 → 00:37:56

L2: This next question is pretty core to LEAN. There is a growing body of evidence that police perjury is a widespread problem in the criminal justice system. I believe we provided an example of that happening in the NYPD.  First, how will you hold law enforcement accountable when it becomes clear that they're not telling the truth. 

SR: I think when I when I read that question what this first brought to mind for me is the Brady Giglio cases that are requirements under Brady and Giglio.  Are you guys familiar with what that is, because I can give a little deeper explanation so.

L2: Yes please.

SR: So what Brady/Giglio is a Brady is comes from the from the Supreme Court case and a Giglio as well and really what it stands for is this proposition that prosecuting attorneys have to disclose misconduct on part of police officers right.  So it's not necessarily the perjury aspect of it but it, it, it's related.  And so it's, it's a, it's an affirmative duty that prosecutors have and it doesn't have to be necessarily just misconduct in connection with the case, or misconduct in connection, necessarily with law enforcement. If I become aware of a police officer that might address issues with his or her credibility, I have an affirmative duty to turn that information over to the defendant. 

So, this is a fairly new development in law where, where prosecutors are now required to start creating what we call Brady lists and same thing in police departments.  And share that information automatically because when we're sharing discovery as a prosecutor we have that affirmative duty to share both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence would be like some of the, like the Brady information so if there's something that would tend to support or show that a defendant didn't do something, say some sort of bias by a police officer some bad act. We have to disclose that if there's a question about whether or not an act is sufficient it falls into that Brady category. There's a process in place where we can submit the materials to the district court for an in camera review or review without anyone else present, and then the judge will make a determination based off of the information that he or she reads and will release it or not release it depending upon if it falls in there or not.  The first thing that I thought of when I read that question was that process, but that's more what leads up to things and that might also bleed into your next question but with respect to the the perjury aspect.

My view of the world is that when people come to the court into the courtroom, you're expected to tell the truth I mean well swear, and all that we're going to tell the truth and more so than anybody that should know that is certainly the people that are the so  professionals that are coming in there on a daily basis.  They, everyone needs to tell the truth if, if I became aware of somebody not telling the truth well, then they're going to, they face the same potential consequences that anyone else does you, know we might have to stop a hearing,  I would call the attorneys into chambers and have a conference, and I would disclose to them what I believe just happened right “I believe that an officer just lied in open court under oath.” Prosecutor's Witness say okay Mr. or Mrs. Prosecutor. This is what I think happened. What, what are your intentions with this witness, because now I think I'm in a position where I have to take some steps affirmatively and possibly  either a stop that witness from testifying further and or maybe both also give a curative or corrective instruction to the jury so it doesn't taint the further process and you might be at such a point where a curative instruction might not help it might be an option and you have a mis trial type situation. And in criminal cases, it's the defendant's right to have that fair trial and you got to guard that very cautiously so I think when something like that happens you err  in favor of making sure you have a fair trial and if it is a fair trial, but that mistrial, so we it's, it's better to try cases many times over in a fair, in a fair manner versus try it once the wrong way. So that's what I would do I think that answers your question, I got to scroll down here and make sure I see it all.  There we go.

L1: I have a follow-up for this. 

SR: Excellent.

L1:  So this is kind of about the bail, something I've heard from community members in Duluth is that the police have arrested people, especially over weekends, and will hold them in jail and then eventually release them on Monday without filing in charges. What can you do about that as a judge, if anything, and how can you, I don't know, how can you stop that kind of thing?

SR: Well, I think really what we're talking about is, we've got a process in place that every, every night, every weekend there, there should be a judge on duty, right.  And their job is to review what's called probable cause arrests right. And so, if you're booking someone in a jail, typically you're going to have to complete what's called a PC, probable cause application.  And I think that's typically required for any, if you're going to put someone in you have to have that with right. And two things typically need to happen with the probable cause application number one: And this is something that we haven't been doing as much in the past, we're doing it more now. Under our rules, prosecutors are supposed to approve the probable cause application.  So, in other words, I, I should be getting, I don't get enough, I don't get enough of them.  But I should be getting calls in the middle of the night from officers saying, okay, we just arrested this person.  Here's the probable cause that we have for the arrest. They typically will read it to me or give me the rundown and then I'll give a yay or nay.  I'll answer back questions. I'll say, well, it seems a little bit light here. Can you answer that question? And if it's not there, you say, okay, well, cut them loose and we'll look into it later.  Or, yep, it looks like you have enough PC and then what they're supposed to do is they're supposed to on this form say reviewed PC with the prosecutor put in the time.  Now that doesn't always happen because either they forget or sometimes I don't hear my phone.  And the police, it's like the police are up to doing that. It's not, it's their response.  It's, it's the police's response. It's, it's a, it's a dual responsibility to put it that way. 

 I've instructed the departments that I work with that they can call and bother me and try to wake me up.  I also then have as a prosecutor and my own affirmative obligation to try to call into the jail. So calling to the jail, the main line has to get transferred into holding.  And ask, okay, do you have any in custodies for me? And then if there are, then they're supposed to read me the PC application and then so that's kind of like a gatekeeping function right there and then the judge also approves PC. So that in part should address some of that. I really would hope that there's not people that are being held without charges on a regular basis, because that's quite frankly not right.  But that's some of the guard rails that are in place, and again I know no guard rails are ever perfect.

Withholding Evidence

Time: 00:37:57 → 00:41:51

L1: Thank you. Next question,  you can see Carlton County attorney Thomas Pertler was disbarred for withholding evidence of policemen conduct from a trial the St. Louis County attorney has been accused of the same thing how will you address misconduct of this kind if you're elected?

SR: So we're talking about the prior question I mentioned Brady Giglio, and I'm not sure what the specific case you're referring to with the St. Louis County attorney I think I don't know and you can tell me if you if you wish.  It might be it might have been a case that involved the failure to disclose a cooperation agreement, perhaps.  So, long story short, what regardless of what it is as a prosecutor, we have incredible authority and weight of the state behind us right.  And so, we have an obligation to make sure that the process that we're participating in is fair. And so that means we have to disclose all the information that's pertinent right whether we think it's relevant or not. It's related to the case it needs to be disclosed. I'd rather air, you know, 100 times on disclosing too much and have the case, you know, be unsuccessful as a prosecution versus your winning a case by not disclosing things.  Because when you're in the defendant's position and I you know I represent private defendants. It's a whole it's a it's a horse of a different color because you're you don't have that weight of the state behind you.  It's just you and your attorney. And so you really rely upon the proper disclosure so you can properly mount a defense so you can properly question a witness.  And I think as judges it's it's fundamental that the courts are policing their own cases and making sure that discovery disclosures are being made.

 And if they're not being made and it comes to your attention I think you have to stop the trial you need to have some chambers conferences with the attorneys involved.  To make a determination whether or not the non disclosure can be remedied in other words are you too far down the road to fix it right or is it something that can be remedied with.  Okay, a disclosure now together with maybe a continuance of the trial to give the defendant or defense attorney time to digest and use the information.  We need to do everything out in the open sunlight is a good thing it's a good disinfectant that's all you get to the truth.That's how we figure out, you know, who's, you know, who's got the credibility who does it right and so if a defendant's in a position where they're not getting, I'll go back to the cooperation agreement example.  If that cooperation agreements not disclosed, then the defendant or defense attorney has missed out on a real good opportunity to challenge the witnesses credibility or in other words are they testifying because they know and they're testifying  the truth or are they testifying because they got this deal from the state it's something that is fair cross examination and then it's up to the jury to make the credibility determination and the jury is entitled to have that information as well so.

So, to answer the question more concisely, as judge you have to police your courtroom you have to make sure the disclosures are being made, and if you believe that there's any misconduct that's happened  you need to stop the trial, you need to take all the players into chambers, find out what's going on and determine if it happened so.

Impact of the Judicial System

Time: 00:41:52 → 00:48:53

L2: Thank you. And thank you for for how much time you've given us today. We're getting to the end of it, this is our last written question we have for you.  How will you measurably improve the disproportionate impact that justice system has on marginalized groups, including homeless folks and people of color, and how will you work to restore community confidence within the justice system?

SR: Again, a great question there too.  I think this again kind of comes back to something I've touched on before, and it all it all starts with how you treat people and how you communicate with them so the very first thing you do.  And I don't know that you can fix it broad based on a systemic level without dealing with it on an individual basis I think that's how change happens is on an individual basis and so I think the way you first start is the way you communicate. So, if you've got, if you got a defendant or even a, let's say it was a civil matter party plaintiff right a little harder to imagine that case but you have to make sure that that the people that are before you first of all.  Are they are they okay right then right, are they in the right headspace, got to make sure that that they're doing fine that they're understanding what's going on with them right now, because if they're not in the right headspace or they're not ready to really understand  what's going on. It's very difficult to proceed forward in a fair way so if they're not ready right then maybe you need. I think what you need to do is we need to try to get people in contact with the resources that we have within our communities.

 We need to try to help them out first in order to proceed forward right so that's step number one step number two is if they are in the right headspace you got you got to talk to them.  Like the real people right, you can't, you can't.  You can't treat them differently just because they're, they're homeless, you got to treat them with respect and dignity, I think, and I'm not saying that judges don't do that.  But that's really the core of how you restore faith and faith in the justice system is you treat people with respect and dignity, regardless of their background or their circumstance.  Because if you're talking to them like they're, they're, they're just regular people you know they, they have some issues you know they're going to, if they feel that you're hearing them.  You know that might help facilitate the communication because if they're not communicating back. That's a problem that's that's a communication failure first on the judge's part, I think, because you didn't set.  You didn't approach it with the right sense of empathy or.  Right, so you got to you got to establish that communication, and then you got to make sure that their rights are being are being observed throughout the process that's the judge's job to make sure that people's rights aren't being trampled on or that they're not being further marginalized in the courtroom. 

 If we're, if we're marginalizing people more when in the courtroom, then we really got big, big problems. So we got to go out of our way to make sure that we're not marginalizing people.  And so again, it comes down in large part to the person that's sitting on the bench, and the way they interact with people.  And that's how you help restore the faith.  In the community confidence in the, in the court system, because what a judge does in the courtroom goes beyond the walls.  And I mean it this way because I've seen people where they, you know, criminal defendant charged with I think this case I'm thinking of right now was an assault and it was a fairly young, young man like 19 something like that, and he was representing himself, and he appeared in front of the judge, I won't name the judge, obviously.  But the judge, after, after we handled his case, the judge took a moment to talk to him on a personal level, because somehow during the conversation, the defendant mentioned something about about him getting back to work or whatever.  And so the judge asked him about that asked him about his job or what his interests are what his goals are. This was a kid that had not yet graduated from high school.  He was going to go for his GED I knew that because I talked to him before. And but the point is the judge took time to talk to him about that, and showed some genuine interest in him, and express some, you know, instilled a little sense of pride in what this guy had been  doing already for his age and then I was walking on the courtroom right behind this person and I and I overheard him talking to I think was a significant other said and he said this said I've never had a judge talk to me like that before.  And that stuck with me and I made sure next time I saw the judge I shared that with the judge because I think judges need that kind of feedback. Because that's how that gets out in the community because I don't know if that, if that person told anyone else that I'd like to think they did I'd like to hope that he went to went home and talk to people said I went to court and you know what that judge took the time to talk to me.  And the way you change things is as one step at a time it's one person one case at a time.  And you hope that you have a positive influence or positive effect on those that are working with you working around you.  And that's what I would do. So it comes down to how you treat people, and you got to treat people with respect. 

L2: Thank you so much. I will see if LEAN1 has any questions for you, but before that I just wanted to open it up if you had any questions for us. 

SR: Yeah, I don't think I have any questions. I took the time this morning to take a look at your website.  I'm very impressed with the work that you guys do, obviously put a lot of effort into it.  And it's great to have you, and you guys are nonprofit, are kind of a small operation and you're gathering information and sharing with the community and I think that's great. So kudos to you guys.

New Paragraph