Public Notice Detail

Chief Justice Kathleen A. Blatz
Minneapolis Club
January 26, 1999

Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to be your guest today.

Just over 11 months from now, most of us will be commemorating the arrival of the year 2000 in one fashion or another.

You may join the mainstream and choose to celebrate the millenium’s arrival on January 1, 2000.  Or you may be a stickler for accuracy and hold your celebrating until the “real” start of the millenium on January 1, 2001.  In either case, you probably agree with me that the millenium theme is starting to creep into every aspect of daily life and will be with us for some time to come.  You see it in advertising. Articles in the media.  Entertainment.  Everywhere you turn.

Which means, of course, that it’s a focus of my speech today.

But while my topic today is the “Minnesota Judiciary: Into a New Millenium,” I want to stress that your state court system’s journey into the new millenium is not a one-time event.  Nor is it a single challenge, like the infamous Y2K problem, where an issue is identified, resolved and we all move on.

For the Minnesota Judiciary – your judicial system – the new millenium means new complexities to address.  But, I believe, it will also be a time for dynamic, thoughtful solutions to benefit all of Minnesota’s citizens.

As Albert Einstein once said, a definition of insanity is doing the same over and over again and expecting a different result.  That seems to be good advice for everyone, but especially for those of us in public service.  In a society that faces so many complex challenges, we can’t afford to say “but we’ve always done it that way.”  Especially when the way we’ve always done it no longer works as well as it once did.

So I would say our watchword today, and for the year 2000, is “solutions.”

I’m reminded of an opening remark made by a college professor about those “blue book” tests with which we were all so familiar.  He said, “focus 90 percent of your time on solutions and only 10 percent of your time on the problems.“

In my time with you, I’d like to tell you about the many ways the Minnesota judicial system is working to find solutions.

First, however, I think it’s important to have a sense of what’s happening in our state to understand the issues – some of them very new to us – that our judicial system will face in coming years.

While our state’s population is growing, the rate of growth continues to slow, with a less than 1 percent increase in 1998, compared with 1.16 percent annual growth in the early 1990s. Total population growth since 1990 has been 8 percent, bringing us to 4.7 million residents. 

But amid this relatively modest population growth, there is real change, especially when you look at the source of our population increases.  Roughly one-third of Minnesota’s population increase this decade was the result of migration, much of it from other countries.  That’s nearly 10,000 people every year who may not have the English language skills necessary to navigate daily life, let alone the judicial system.

Looking ahead, the nine suburban counties around the Twin Cities are expected to account for 87 percent of the population growth in the next 30 years, while half of our state’s counties – nearly all of them rural – are projected to lose population by 2025.

I’m sure you’re as pleased as I am with a report issued earlier this year showing that serious crime – like murder, rape, burglary and arson – declined 20 percent from October 1997 to October 1998.  Much of this has been attributed to focusing law enforcement efforts and resources on prevention and intervention efforts. 

In recent years, we’ve also seen a number of new laws intended to address critical issues like drunk driving and child protection.

Finally, from 1990 to 1996 our economy grew nearly 23 percent and unemployment has reached record lows.

Those are some general statistics.  Now let’s look at what has happened in our state court system.

While our population growth is slowing, serious crime is down and the economy is strong, use of our state’s courts continues to climb.  In 1997, Minnesota courts handled nearly 2 million conflicts.

If we look back 10 years, the state court caseload has increased 41 percent, while our population has increased only 8 percent. Major criminal cases are up 74 percent. Juvenile caseloads have doubled, with the biggest increases occurring in the growing suburban Twin Cities counties.  Filings in drug cases have increased 90 percent since 1992. Again, surprising in light of our relatively small state population growth.

On the civil side, the trend is just as dramatic, with civil filings up significantly in the past 10 years.

For an even more startling look at the impact on our court system, go back to 1982. You’ll see that the number of annual case filings has increased by nearly 170,000.

So there’s a snap shot and a lot of statistics.  Let me try to demonstrate to you, by example, the significant effect on our court system and our judges that these changes have had.

In 1997, our 254 trial court judges averaged 855 major cases each, along with thousands of minor matters like misdemeanor DWI and domestic assault.  And, as you can recognize from the statistics I just shared with you, those numbers will only increase in the next few years.

In response, our judicial system has worked hard to become as efficient and streamlined as possible.  In a few minutes, I’ll share a number of these innovations with you.  But the bottom line today is that we’re in a precarious balancing act.  We’re striving to effectively deal with the growing demand on your court system, while watching the time available to spend on individual cases decline significantly.

To share just a few examples, in 1986 judges spent an average 64 minutes on gross misdemeanor cases.  By last year, that time had declined by 25 percent to less than 49 minutes.  Judges now spend, on average, just over 11 minutes on each misdemeanor DWI case, about 20 minutes on each domestic abuse matter and five minutes per juvenile traffic offense.

Whether you’re a victim or a defendant, that’s not a lot of time spent on a matter of great seriousness in your life.  I don’t believe a justice system that operates as an assembly line can adequately address our society’s needs.

In addition, you’ll recall the statistic I shared about our state’s growing immigrant population.  This kind of demographic shift is having a tremendous impact on the court system.  Today, the St. Paul schools report more than 50 languages spoken in their school district – from Spanish to Somali.  This is certainly reflected in that community’s courts. And it’s not just a concern in the Twin Cities.  In communities like Worthington, in southwest Minnesota, a full 20 percent of cases last year required the services of a court interpreter.  Hennepin County alone last year needed an interpreter for 5,000 court proceedings—Spanish, Somalian . . .

The issue of providing court interpreters is not one of political correctness.  It’s one of justice.  If an individual cannot understand what is being said in court about his or her rights, legal representation or even a schedule of court appearances, justice cannot be served.  We are working hard to address this need by developing a base of 400 interpreters and creating a stringent certification process which 20 interpreters already have passed.  We recognize, however, that this must be an ongoing effort.

These are the realities the Minnesota judicial system must address as we enter a new millenium.

In crafting our solutions, the first and most important question to ask ourselves is “what do Minnesota citizens want and deserve when it comes to their system of justice?”

I firmly believe – and our mission as a court system states it – that Minnesotans want a system of justice that provides for the fair and timely resolution of cases and controversies.

How do we make that happen?  Well, at the moment we do have a request before this legislative session for 18 new judgeships – a 7 percent increase in an environment where workload is growing in the double digits.  We believe adding judges is essential to handling effectively what we know lies ahead.

But we also recognize that new judges alone cannot address all of the complex issues we face today and tomorrow.

The solutions we need require creativity and they also require teamwork.  Teamwork within our judicial system.  Teamwork among the three branches of government.  Teamwork with others in the communities we serve. 

This kind of teamwork will not only allow us to provide an effective system of justice, it will make the courts participants in finding solutions to broader problems facing our state today.  Solutions that ultimately will address issues for children, for youth and for communities before they become court system statistics.

In our remaining time, I want to share with you some very exciting projects underway throughout the state, projects that will help our court system achieve its goals in the new millenium.

These fall into three general categories: teamwork, creativity and technology.

When we talk about teamwork, in many ways we’re breaking out of the box for the judicial system.  Our nation’s tradition has been to distance our courts from government and even society in an effort to maintain an independent judiciary.  And there’s no question that independence is the foundation of our system of justice.

But separate doesn’t mean severed.  Independent does not mean out of touch.  Our system of government is a tree with three branches, each serving its own function, but united at the trunk and to the root.  One tree with one purpose -- serving our citizens.

In today’s complex society, I believe there is an appropriate role for the judicial system to work with other branches of government, agencies and the community to address problems.  During 1998, we initiated several innovative efforts that hold promise for the future.

The first was to create what we’re calling an Interbranch Forum.  It was an initiative of the judiciary, agreed to by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader.  This past fall, 21 legislators and 17 judges met for a candid exchange of issues and ideas.  I participated in these meetings and came away enlightened and energized.  We exchanged information on how our own branch of government operates, openly shared our views on the other branch, talked about how the actions of one branch impact those of the other, and considered strategic efforts for working together on issues facing the state.

We’re looking forward to building good communication with the legislative branch and much greater collaboration in identifying current problems in the criminal and civil justice systems and working jointly on their solutions.

In another teamwork effort, we’re about to launch a statewide task force which will bring court representatives, law enforcement officials and social service agencies together to assess the programs offered to juveniles. 

Through this, we hope to learn whether there are gaps today in the services offered for juveniles.  Do programs overlap?  Are we missing opportunities to address issues that would reduce the influx of children and youths into the justice system?  We hope this close look at juvenile services will result in an improved ability to find early solutions.  You might be interested to know that while this joint effort, was initiated some time ago, it’s consistent with recent recommendations made by the Office of the Legislative Auditor that a more broad-based look at available programs and resources be used when making decisions that affect the lives of children.

Another example of teamwork will take place next month in southeast Minnesota, where court and criminal justice professionals will meet to assess their county’s strengths and weaknesses in the delivery of services and community response to violence against women.  Similar efforts are underway in other areas of the state. Again, another opportunity to meet a very critical need for Minnesota citizens by coordinating resources that are already in place.

As I mentioned earlier, creativity – finding new ways to tackle problems – will be essential.  Several programs are being tested already, with good results.  

The one you’ve probably heard the most about was the establishment of the Drug Court here in Hennepin County.  While we still have a year to go in this experiment, and fine-tuning continues, overall we’re pleased with the results.   Today, the drug court is handling 25 percent of Hennepin County’s felony load.  On average, defendants are in treatment within 18 hours of arrest and the typical case is concluded less than two weeks from time of arrest to beginning of treatment or other sentence.

Recognizing that substance addition is a chronic and recurring disorder, the Drug Court features continuous supervision over the recovery process for defendants as a means of first stabilizing and then rebuilding their lives.

In Drug Court, defendants are subjected to multiple probation conditions including limited jail time, twice weekly drug testing, treatment program attendance, employment counseling, compliance with child support orders, payment of fines and costs and periodic follow-up appearances before the judge to review individual progress.

In the first 18 months of operation, the Drug Court has been remarkably successful in meeting its goals.   Ongoing drug screening has shown a dramatic reduction in drug use among offenders.   Only 7 percent were rearrested for drug offenses.  Despite a 47 percent increase in drug felony prosecutions [REPEAT] following the introduction of the Drug court, its expedited processing procedures actually reduced the number of jail bed days associated with drug arrests resulting in a quarter of a million dollar savings to the county in 1997.

Because the Drug Court model combines the coercive power of the court to connect offenders to needed treatment and services with continuous judicial monitoring of each person’s progress, many drug offenders appear to be turning their lives around.

Similarly, pilot community courts and court calendars are in place in other urban areas to focus on low-end, livability or gateway offenses.  Again, this is an effort to administer justice in a timely fashion, with a goal of preventing these individuals from returning to the system.

One project I’m especially pleased with is a pilot program in Hennepin, Dakota and Clay counties testing an early intervention, stringent timeline and continuous judicial monitoring model for child protection cases.

As an individual, I have been chronically, and at times acutely, pained by the treatment of children in the foster care and child protection system.  [Examples]  I am particularly pleased about open courts. [Three-year project, etc.]

One judge who has participated in this pilot says that thus far the result has been better case plans for these children and their families.  She says parents who know they’ll see the same judge – rather than a new face on the bench each time – appear to work harder to meet the requirements laid out for them.  And, most important, the children involved can either be reunited with their families or placed in other permanent circumstances more quickly.

Four of our state’s judicial districts are piloting another program, which assigns a single judge to manage and hear all matters involving a single family such as juvenile issues, divorce, child support orders and domestic abuse.

Finally, a look at what lies ahead would not be complete without a discussion of technology.

They say technology is like a steamroller.  If you’re not driving, you’re destined to be part of the road.  I’m pleased to say that where technology is concerned, your court system is behind the wheel.

As the rural-to-urban shift in our state’s population continues, we must address the impact on the court system.  All Minnesota citizens deserve equal access to justice, no matter where they live.  But, especially as we try to maximize our resources, it becomes more and more difficult to have judges, attorneys, witnesses and others on the road for hours, sometimes to participate in a very short proceeding. In 1998, courts in our 9th Judicial District – the area that spans 17 counties in the northwest corner of Minnesota – experimented with interactive television. While it takes a little getting used to, the technology is sound and many participants already are asking to expand its use. 

This kind of technology is not limited to our district courts.  This past November, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard oral arguments via interactive television for the first time.  A three-judge panel was located in its St. Paul courtroom and the lawyers were in their local courthouses in Hallock and Thief River Falls.  Participants were able to see and hear the judges and the attorney who was making argument.

We’re continuing this effort  to reduce travel time and expenses for judges and attorneys, to minimize the risk of cancellation due to weather conditions and to alleviate delays.  We also see great opportunities to use this type of technology to deliver services like orders for protection, child support and conciliation court.

This technology proved itself quickly with our initial case in November.  If the court hadn’t used the interactive videoconferencing technology, those arguments might have been cancelled due to weather conditions.  The attorneys, located in Hallock and Thief River Falls, would have been fighting 12 inches of freshly fallen snow to get to the appeals court in St. Paul.

Technology will also play an important role in the state judicial system’s internal workings.  We’ve made great strides in electronically linking the 10 judicial districts.  Efforts are underway to develop Intranet and Extranet sites to help us exchange information both internally and with those outside the system with whom we work closely.  Long-term, we want to strengthen the electronic links to others in our state’s criminal justice system:  county attorneys, public defenders, local and county law enforcement officials.

Along those lines, advances in technology are also helping us protect our citizens on a daily basis.  In domestic violence cases, what we call Orders for Protection are issued to bar contact when one individual is considered a threat to another. But to truly protect those at risk, it’s essential that up-to-date information on these OFPs be accessible to law enforcement agencies as soon as possible.

In the last year, the court system and law enforcement agencies have worked together to make this information available via computer “hot files.”

Among the success stories is an instance where access to this information helped sheriff’s deputies arrest a man who was stalking his wife with the intent to kill her.  A quick check of the man’s record during a routine stop showed he was in violation of the OFP.  In this case, access to information may well have saved a woman’s life.

By combining technology and teamwork, efforts like these help our justice system serve the very relevant  -- and sometimes life-and-death -- needs of Minnesota citizens.

And that, as we approach the new millenium, is what’s really important.  To use the tools available to us to ensure that the Minnesota judicial system can both decide cases in an impartial manner and stay in touch with the issues of today.  To use teamwork and creativity to provide an effective system of justice.  And, when appropriate, to be part of the solution to the challenges facing our state.

I hope you’ll agree with me that as a court system and as a state, we have much about which we can be optimistic.  On that note, I’d like to leave you with the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who said:

“There is in most Americans some spark of idealism, which can be fanned into a flame. It takes sometimes a divining rod to find what it is; but when found, the results are often extraordinary.”

Thank you for inviting me.  I look forward to your questions and comments.