Judge Michael L. Kirk -- 7th District
by Dan Heilman
Born: July 17, 1950; Grand Forks, N.D.
Appointed/Elected: Appointed Dec. 1, 1989, by Gov. Rudy Perpich; elected 1992, 1998 and 2004 (current term expires January 2011); chief judge, 7th Judicial District, 2005-present; assistant chief judge, 7th Judicial District, 2000-05
Education: J.D., University of Minnesota Law School, 1975; B.A. (Economics), University of Minnesota, 1972
Other employment: Otter Tail County Attorney, 1978-89; Williams and Nitz Law Firm, Fergus Falls, Minn., 1975-78
Professional activities: Minnesota Judicial Council; Minnesota Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure; Clay County Bar Association
Teaching Experience: Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, Northland Community College; Business Law, Minnesota State University Moorhead; Bemidji Trial School, sponsored by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, County Attorneys’ Association, and State Board of Public Defense.
Hobbies: Golf, coaching youth sports
Family: Wife, Joan; four children
From his court in Clay County, 7th District Chief Judge Michael L. Kirk has seen his share of high-profile cases during his years on the bench, and even before then.Appointed/Elected: Appointed Dec. 1, 1989, by Gov. Rudy Perpich; elected 1992, 1998 and 2004 (current term expires January 2011); chief judge, 7th Judicial District, 2005-present; assistant chief judge, 7th Judicial District, 2000-05
Education: J.D., University of Minnesota Law School, 1975; B.A. (Economics), University of Minnesota, 1972
Other employment: Otter Tail County Attorney, 1978-89; Williams and Nitz Law Firm, Fergus Falls, Minn., 1975-78
Professional activities: Minnesota Judicial Council; Minnesota Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure; Clay County Bar Association
Teaching Experience: Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, Northland Community College; Business Law, Minnesota State University Moorhead; Bemidji Trial School, sponsored by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, County Attorneys’ Association, and State Board of Public Defense.
Hobbies: Golf, coaching youth sports
Family: Wife, Joan; four children
As Otter Tail County Attorney, Kirk successfully prosecuted Underwood, Minn., resident John Rairdon in 1986 for sexually abusing and murdering his 13-year-old daughter Sarah Ann, in a story that gained national attention.
As a judge, Kirk dismissed a lawsuit claiming the common law tort of invasion of privacy in the case of Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, recognizing intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation and publication of private facts as causes of action in tort.
More recently, Kirk found himself in the headlines when he decided Jason McLaughlin was not insane when he shot and killed fellow students Seth Bartell and Aaron Rollins at Rocori High School in 2003. It took Kirk only an hour to decide that McLaughlin had not met the M’Naughton rule — Minnesota’s standard for a mental illness defense.
That decisiveness has served Kirk well in a 19-year-career on the bench. He recently took some time to talk with Minnesota Lawyer about issues both inside and outside his court.
Other than being prepared, what advice would you offer attorneys who practice in your court?
Beyond that, I would tell lawyers to breathe a little life into their cases — help me understand the case the way you understand it, and feel it the way you feel it. One thing I noticed when I first went on the bench was that I didn’t have the same knowledge and understanding of cases that I had as a lawyer. I wasn’t meeting with the witnesses, and all I really had to work with was what was in the court’s file. So to the extent that they can help me get a grasp on the difficult issues, that certainly is appreciated.
Are there any specific procedural requirements lawyers should be aware of when they appear before you?
Not particularly, other than those that are in the General Rules of Practice about filing your proposed jury instructions and verdict forms before the trial. I like to address any evidentiary issues by motions in limine or other ways that allow us to use the jury’s time most efficiently when we have a jury case, so that they’re not waiting for us to discuss issues of that sort or go over proposed jury instructions and the like.
Beyond that, the only thing that might be a little different is that I have a high-tech courtroom. We have an evidence presentation box with the ability to show DVDs or any kind of presentation through a computer, so if attorneys are going to use that technology, I would hope they’d take the time to familiarize themselves with it and be ready to use it effectively.
What about the behavior of attorneys — any pet peeves you’d like to vent about?
There aren’t really any issues around how they behave toward me. I don’t like it when they get into it with each other. I’d rather they talk with me than take potshots back and forth at each other.
In the almost 20 years I’ve been on the bench, the level of civility hasn’t really improved. It seems to be directed more between the attorneys than toward the court.
What are some cases that stick out in your memory? I imagine the McLaughlin case was pretty significant.
As a judge, the case related to the Rocori shootings would certainly be up there. From the civil side, I had the Lake v. Wal-Mart privacy case, where the Supreme Court first recognized the right to sue in privacy.
As a prosecutor, when I was county attorney, I handled the Rairdon case. That was a significant case back in the 1980s.
What are some of the primary issues facing your court these days?
I’d like to say it’s our ability to improve outcomes for people by looking at specialty courts such as drug courts and alcohol courts. We’re moving forward in those areas in a number of our counties.
But that ties back to the budget issues that all the courts are facing right now. Obviously, a lot of our focus and concern has to be with that, because our ability just to do the basic work of the court is going to be impacted by the level of funding that we either have or don’t have in the future.
I think most people know and understand that we’re currently underfunded as a court system. There’s a significant concern that that underfunding is going to be even more pronounced in the next biennium.
Judicial election is an issue that’s on the mind of the judiciary. What are your feelings on that issue?
I think we want to see a system that doesn’t politicize the judiciary, and doesn’t cause us to have the kind of elections and the kind of money issues that have existed in some other states, where you can certainly start to question the impartiality of the judiciary. The judges become so dependent on the money they need to raise for their campaign.
We haven’t seen that in Minnesota yet, but there’s a threat of it in the future, especially when you look at what’s happened in places like Wisconsin. At the end of the day, I’m for whatever system that will best tell the public that they’re going to get a fair and impartial shake when they appear in front of a judge.
