Prosecution of law enforcement officers was better served by grand juries

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty’s recent allegation against Gov. Tim Walz — that he treats her differently than her male predecessor because she’s a queer woman (”Governor’s supporters reject Moriarty claim,” June 5) — is just another piece of evidence demonstrating her lack of judgment and inability to understand basic concepts of prosecution.

As a former prosecutor who tried Amy Senser, I know only too well how public scrutiny impacts a case (“An apology, forgiveness, 41 months,” July 10, 2012). A good public prosecutor stays out of the headlines, letting the facts and public court filings speak for themselves.

The voters and taxpayers of Hennepin County have as their top prosecutor someone who ran in part on holding law enforcement accountable. After the George Floyd tragedy, I have no issue with that. However, the manner in which this mission has been executed has done far more harm than good.

I watched with great sadness how, under former Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, the prosecution of police officers took a hammer to the very important relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors. For many years, I placed my trust in the street cops and investigators who, for the most part, were doing really difficult jobs. In those days, police shootings were presented to a grand jury and any prosecutions were farmed out of the office to preserve that working relationship.

When Freeman abolished that process, immense pressure was — unfairly, in my opinion — brought to bear on those lawyers assigned to those cases. Mistakes were made, and the excess scrutiny has done nothing to help the overall reputation of the office.

There’s a reason that Josh Larson refused to continue with the case (“Senior lawyer in trooper’s case exits,” April 26), and it’s not that it was too complicated. The most difficult part of a prosecutor’s job is proving beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged offense. I should know; I had to prove that Amy Senser knew she hit a person or a vehicle and left the scene of the crash. Despite her testimony to the contrary, the jury found her guilty. In other words, they did not believe her.

In the Ryan Londregan case, any seasoned prosecutor could see the defense argument from a mile away. And, without any evidence to the contrary, the case could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The report submitted by the very expensive outside counsel complains that trooper Londregan didn’t provide a statement to investigators. As a prior defense attorney, Moriarty should understand that law enforcement personnel who are under criminal investigation have the same constitutional rights as any criminal suspect, including the right to remain silent.

I’m astounded that nobody in the county attorney’s office was able to predict that argument, even without an initial statement from the suspect. But after following the media coverage of the case, I can’t help wondering if some lawyers raised the possibility and were shut down.

When the stakes are high, a prosecutor’s office needs to bring its A-game. With so much distrust blanketing the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, it’s time to rethink how these cases are handled. Giving them back to the grand jury would be a good first step.

Deborah Russell, of Clear Lake, Minn., is a retired assistant Hennepin County attorney.