From the bench: Judge John Smith, 9th Judicial District

Listen to this article

Cass County District Court Judge John Smith is a man of many interests. He is a black belt in karate and enjoys such varied hobbies as hypnotism, gardening, flying and genealogy. An avid reader, Smith has just four books left on the Rand McNally editor’s list of the 100 best novels. He is also working his way through two other “100 best” book lists.

The eclectic interest of the judge include volunteering at the Olympics. He worked in crowd control and visitor services in Atlanta in 1996, Sydney in 2000 and Athens in 2004.

The 16-year veteran of the bench this summer completed four years as chief judge of the geographically vast 9th Judicial District, handing the reins over to Judge Jon Maturi on July 1, 2007.

Smith recently talked about some of the issues facing Minnesota’s courts and what he likes to see in his own courtroom in particular.

What made you decide to seek a seat on the bench more than 15 years ago?

I like to find solutions to problems. And, after you do something for an extended period of time [like practicing law], you look for new challenges. I thought that it would be an interesting challenge, which it’s been. I’ve also always been public-service minded and I thought that it would be a good way to [perform] some public service.

What are some of the challenges facing the courts in Minnesota?

The governance of the courts is a big challenge, because that’s changing as we’ve moved into state funding. Technology is a big challenge because I think that we could be a little more efficient with the use of new technologies. I also think the demands that are placed on judges now [is greater] — as opposed to years ago — because with every new legislative change it seems like there are more things the judges need to do and more things they have to be aware of, so that’s challenging.

What are some of the challenges facing the 9th Judicial District in particular?

Cass County has the Leech Lake Reservation in its jurisdiction, so there are lots of unique issues that come up because of that. … Plus, our geographical distances are fairly unique. We use ITV (interactive television) a fair amount to conduct business because of the geographical dynamics.

Use of ITV has been somewhat controversial among defense lawyers in Minnesota. Why do you favor its use?

I personally don’t use it a whole lot but it’s nice to have when we have cases that somebody can’t take care of. For example, we may have a case in the north end of the district and the judge there might be trying a case somewhere else. So someone in Walker could actually hear the arraignment and get the person out of jail quickly rather than making them wait until the judge gets there. …

Our district was actually the first one to use ITV. We were the pilot project for it back in 1999. … What the Supreme Court is doing [now] is actually making it into a rule that fits into the criminal rules. … It’s just a real valuable tool for us to have.

What’s the most rewarding part of your job?

Our job is to find solutions and to help people solve problems. [Judging] is like parenting in a fashion, because what you are trying to do is get people to conform to social norms. When you are able to do that and can actually help people by making them see the error of their ways, so that they have a better life for themselves, that’s rewarding. That’s a particularly rewarding part of our Drug Court — you get to do a little more of that. I also think I am more of a problem solver, so I enjoy cases in which I help bring about a resolution, whether it’s by trial or by helping in a settlement. …

[In addition], I think the juvenile court system works pretty well with changing young people. I’ve seen a lot of young people get straightened out in the juvenile system and that’s pretty rewarding too. I guess anytime you can help somebody by doing your job well, then that’s rewarding.

What advice do you have for lawyers who appear before you?

Lawyers who are prepared help the judge do a better job. … If they don’t prepare and present the case in a way that is easy to understand, then it really makes the job difficult because then you have to start guessing about what they are trying to get at.

I also like lawyers who are professional; they are not snippy, they don’t get emotionally charged, and they state their case and do it in a way that doesn’t get personal with other lawyers. I think that’s become more of a problem than it used to be. It used to be that lawyers were, I think, a little more civil to each other and didn’t take potshots. There’s no need for it. What happens, in my opinion, is that when lawyers take shots at each other it degrades the profession.

Do you have any specific procedural requirements that lawyers who appear before you should be aware of?

The thing I like is if there are exhibits, that I get a copy so that I can follow the case. … A lot of times lawyers forget that the judge is the decider of fact, and they don’t give the judge the exhibit that they are talking to the witness about. …

I don’t try to be overly technical about things; I am more concerned with the substance of what people have to say.

Do any cases from your judicial career stick out as particularly memorable?

Oh yeah, I’ve got all kinds of them (laughs). We’ve had a number of homicides here that have been particularly significant. We had the State v. Sewell trial, which was the first case, and I think maybe the only case, which involved the use of ITV. It was a homicide case … that ended up in a hung jury the first time. One of the witnesses broke his neck in between the trials had moved to Arizona and his doctor wouldn’t let him travel. He’d given sworn testimony before so we could use the transcript, but we ended up doing his testimony by ITV because I thought that was a better way than just having the transcript. … It wasn’t ideal because the witness appeared at a Kinko’s in Phoenix, but I thought that the jury got a better look than if they had just heard the transcript. … It was appealed on that basis to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed. I think it was a limited ruling, but I thought it was interesting. [The Supreme Court] denied certiorari. …

[The homicide cases] are certainly the most gripping and emotionally charged and challenging because there is so much at stake for everyone. Although, we also had, I believe, the first armed robbery of an Indian casino in the United States. … I could go on and on, there are just a lot of [interesting cases]. … It’s a busy court.

Minnesota Lawyer is a sister publication to the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.