Sahan Journal recently spoke with the Hennepin County Attorney primary candidates about their campaigns. Their answers to each question have been edited for length and clarity.
How will you vet police testimony and evidence in cases presented by Minneapolis police, in light of the Jaleel Stallings case?
Paul Ostrow:
It’s absolutely critical that the prosecutors have access to any sustained violations of police conduct and any sustained circumstances where officers have testified untruthfully. That’s the only way we can appropriately judge the credibility of our own witnesses.
It’s awfully hard for me to reconcile the evidence in the Jaleel Stallings case with the prosecution that was brought, and I don’t have all the inside information. Clearly, the jury very quickly believed that Mr. Stallings acted in self-defense.
That case also points out that when law enforcement is a potential target or victim in a high-profile case like that, are there certain circumstances that make it difficult for the county attorney to be objective? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered because of that case.
Mary Moriarty:
When I was chief public defender, there was a police officer from Corcoran. He had six cases thrown out by five different judges for violating people’s constitutional rights. Two of those judges found that he lied under oath. And in the sixth case, the public defender asked him, “Are you aware that you’ve had five cases thrown out for violating people’s constitutional rights?” And he said, “Yes I am, but I disagree with their decisions.”
Afterwards, supervisors from the county attorney’s office had a meeting with supervisors from the public defender’s office who said, “What are you going to do about this guy?” And their answer was, “We’re not his employer.” That’s simply not acceptable.
It’s the job of the county attorney to decide whether to bring that case or not. The Jaleel Stallings case is a good example of why the trust in the county attorney’s office is so poor.
I don’t know how they could have made the decision to charge Jaleel Stallings with attempted murder and not charge either one of the two officers for committing what was a first-degree assault [on Stallings]. They fractured his eye socket. You can see on the video that he has given himself up—he’s lying face first on the ground, he’s tossed the gun—and you see one cop running across the parking lot and kicking him in the face. Then you see two cops beating him for 30 seconds. I can’t believe that that was an objectively reasonable use of force. Vetting is easy in that case—just look at the video.
After Jaleel Stallings was acquitted, the county attorney’s office tried to prevent the video from becoming public, and they failed. And so now we’ve all seen it. And I know that various media have reached out to the county attorney’s office to get a statement, and we still haven’t heard anything from the county attorney’s office. If I was county attorney, I would take accountability for decisions that the office made.
Saraswati Singh:
As prosecutors we see a lot of the evidence, and we review it, right? It’s not just police reports. There’s body cam, squad footage—we pull recordings from businesses that have security cameras.
First, you have to hire good prosecutors. And then you also have to create a culture where you let your office know that this is the standard that you have. And letting them know that when you pass the bar exam, that’s not enough to get the profession. You have to pass a professional responsibilities test, additional background checks, and questioning regarding your character. Those things are important when you’re in this profession.
As a prosecutor, your one job is to do justice. That is how I’m going to approach handling those types of cases, and what I would expect from the prosecutors that work in my office.
Martha Holton Dimick:
That was pretty bad. We had to have all the information. I don’t think the office had all the information. I would want to know everything before any charging decision is made, and that includes Mr. Stallings’. You’ve got to get the whole picture.
There are police officers that are going to tell you the truth, that are going to lead you in the right direction. If that’s not the case, I want to interview everyone who was involved. I want to make sure that those officers have been adequately interviewed. I want to look at their reports, if anyone has a history. And we’re going to find out if anyone has a history of lying or making things up.
Then we are going to investigate, we’re going to notify the [Minneapolis Police Department], and we’re going to disclose that information to the defense attorneys, because the credibility of a witness is very important, regardless of if it’s a police officer, a bystander, or the defendant.
Lying under oath in the past is a good indication that evidence presented by a police officer may not be sufficient to charge an individual. We need to understand which officers have that history of lying under oath, presenting false information, or falsifying evidence.
In any particular case involving such an officer, there should be a second level of review of the evidence that officer is presenting to ensure its integrity. That is something that the police accountability unit should be charged with doing in the county attorney’s office. It doesn’t mean you don’t charge every case with evidence presented by that officer, but it has to go through an extra layer of scrutiny first.
Then I would try to work in partnership with supervisors and leaders in the Minneapolis Police Department to understand who those officers are–what their record is–and try to find a way forward to have people with a good record presenting the evidence. That also means that the prosecutor has to work with the police department to make sure that the highest standards are met for ethics.
Under my plan, an officer who has perjured or engaged in some bad behavior, or made statements of bias that show a disregard for people of color will not testify, because I believe that goes against their credibility. If you have officers who, even amongst friends, are making racist statements, I cannot have confidence in that officer.
A lot of times you don’t see people of color on juries. I will prohibit prosecutors in my office from striking people of color from the jury unless they have a legitimate and reasonable basis that has nothing to do with race, gender, sexual preference, etc.
Thaddeus “Tad” Jude:
The testimony given by a police officer should be considered the same as any other testimony of a witness in a case. There’s no special treatment for witnesses, whether or not they’re a police officer.
In court, you look at the credibility of a witness and you take a number of factors into consideration, and that’s what I would do as a county attorney. I would look at the credibility of the testimony and treat those factors the same for police as any other witness.