Judicial Council opts against imposing civil jury trial freeze
by Barbara L. Jones Associate Editor
The state’s Judicial Council at its June meeting at the State Bar convention faced the need to cut another $550,000 from its fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010 budgets to meet a reduction implemented in the waning hours of the legislative session last month. It accomplished that painful task by implementing 2 percent cuts across the board. The most recent budget cuts mean that the courts are now $19 million underfunded.
But the council decided not to place a six-month hold on civil jury trials, a move that it had earlier approved. In reversing course, the council cited resistance from the civil bar and a realization that the measure would not be cost-effective.
After the Judicial Council approved implementation of the six-month delay in civil jury trials last May, it gathered information from the judicial districts, most of which was negative. Although the moratorium might have “saved over $180,000” the costs would simply be pushed into another budget year, the council determined.
“We’re getting pushback from lawyers and judges. We want the civil bar on our side,” said 7th Judicial District Chief Judge Michael Kirk. He said that while a civil trial moratorium would certainly send a message about the gravity of the court’s budget problems, it wouldn’t really save money.
But other judges said the message should be sent. The Legislature needs to understand that the court means what it says about cutting services, said Stevens County District Court Judge Gerald Seibel. “Why should the Legislature believe us? We always say we’re going to stop doing something but we don’t.”
Hennepin County District Court Judge Charles Porter, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, agreed that the Judicial Council needed to send a message but “civil [litigation] isn’t a core service. I would love it if it were.” He suggested that by “saving” civil trials, the judges were serving their own interests.
Civil lawyers say a moratorium would have been devastating to their clients.
“It just delays justice for people who have a right to it,” said Minneapolis attorney Sharon Van Dyck, president-elect of the Minnesota Association for Justice. The Minnesota Constitution guarantees that citizens have access to the courts for dispute resolution, “and I don’t know how you get around that,” she said, adding a delay would only put the problem off in any case.
Minneapolis attorney Paul Godlewski said a moratorium “would have been disastrous down the road.” While the court system has come a long way since the days when two years elapsed from filing to trial, a moratorium would put it in danger of sliding back.
In other cost-cutting business, the Judicial Council did leave in place a May decision to cut back on the per diem rate paid jurors. The rate was slashed from $20 per day to $10 per day, effective in August. The council was visibly uncomfortable with the move, particularly because the juror’s mileage rate of 27 cents per mile is about half the federal rate of 50.5 cents per mile for business.
“We don’t have the money to do the right thing,” said Chief Justice Eric Magnuson. (Ironically, the state will spend between $17,000 and $20,000 to destroy and reprint the jury summons with the reduced rate.)
