Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty discusses reassignment of juvenile case to state attorney general
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty campaigned on a desire to reform the juvenile justice system. Now, four months into the job, her platform is getting its first big test: the case of two teenagers charged with killing a 23-year-old woman in her Brooklyn Park apartment.
Moriarty offered a plea deal to the teen defendants, which spurred backlash.
Last week, Gov. Tim Walz reassigned the case from Moriarty to Attorney General Keith Ellison. Ellison said the plea deal was too lenient for the severity of the crime. But Moriarty said the deal, which carried a maximum sentence of two years in a juvenile facility, was the teens' best chance of rehabilitation.
MPR News host Cathy Wurzer spoke to Moriarty about the case and her first months on the job.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation.
What was it about the suspects that led you to your conclusion in this situation?
Well, first, I should say that the sentence isn't only two years in a juvenile prison, it also has 115 months of adult prison time stayed. That means that if either youth violates probation, they could have gone to prison for a lengthy adult prison sentence. So in terms of how we approach youth, we look at each individual youth we look at their past and we look at the case itself.
We listen to the family and we try to figure out what makes the most sense in terms of public safety. In this particular case, we certified a youth who was 17 years old recently, because of his age, because of his prior circumstances, just because of where he was in our belief that we could not properly protect the public in the juvenile system and rehabilitate him.
And so with talking about the 15-year-old, I should also emphasize that our law says that he is in juvenile court. In other words, there's a presumption that he should be in juvenile court. The only way his case could actually be handled in adult court is if we made what's called a certification petition. And a judge agreed that we had proven that he could not be rehabilitated.
So what I wanted to say about that is because it is a presumptive juvenile case, nothing about this young person is public — not his psychological profile — nothing is public about his case.
In this office the only people who actually know anything about him and his history are what psychologists have said. The Attorney General doesn't know that, the Governor doesn't know that and anybody weighing in on this also doesn't know about that.
We made the specific decision in this case, that our best chance of public safety was to rehabilitate him in the system while also having a very lengthy adult sentence hanging over his head.
You mentioned that you talked to the families, I would bet the McKeever family would disagree with you and that they feel hurt in this situation. What about them?
I continue to express my deepest condolences to the family, they are experiencing something unimaginable. And they're grief stricken. I understand their request and I did meet with them. We did talk about that very issue because they felt that the office was not listening to what their desires were on the case.
I did listen, the meeting was for over an hour. In answer to that particular question, I said to them that as the county attorney in our office, we have to create space for victims and families to talk about what they want to see happen — we have to create space for their grief. And we have to take into consideration what they want, as well as other factors to determine what's in the best interest of public safety.
Even in that conversation, they responded, “OK, so that means you don't necessarily have to do what we want,” which is true.
I cannot imagine what it's like to be that family. I also know that my predecessor had a different course of action here. I apologize to the family that we changed direction based on what we thought was best in public for public safety. It was unfortunate that it happened to them and I did apologize for that.
I have listened. I think one thing that's appropriate here is to keep in mind that prosecutors cannot simply take what the victim or victims families want, and just go do that. One example I'll give you — during right when the Deshaun Hill case was being tried — the family asked me to charge the principal of North High School, that was not appropriate. There were no criminal charges there. She did nothing.
So had I done what the family wanted, in that case, I would have done something completely inappropriate. While we do have to listen and I take that very seriously, I personally met with the family and listened. While we do need to create space for that, ultimately, we have to do what we think is right in terms of public safety.
Couldn't some juvenile offenders look at the situation as a get-out-of-jail-free-card?
You raised some really good points there and that's why I go back to looking at each individual case. For instance, we certified a couple of 17 year olds, because we felt that given where they were, given the amount of time we had to work with them in the juvenile system, given their histories and everything that we factored in, we just couldn't ensure public safety in terms of deterrence.
When people say you have to send a youth to prison for a long period of time because that deters other youth, that typically isn't how it works. We see this every day. There are other situations by the way, where deterrence works really well, such as in wage theft, which we are aggressively prosecuting. If we prosecute wage theft as a felony, that will deter some of the companies that are doing that. So it's very different with youth and we have to look at where each individual youth is at their maturity.
Can you do anything to fight Attorney General Ellison taking over this case?
What I think people should understand is that there are 87 elected county attorneys in Minnesota, each elected by the people who live in their counties. The Minnesota County Attorneys Association represents all of them. They voted unanimously to urge the attorney general not to ask the governor to take this case.
One of them said, “If he takes this case, that means there's only one county attorney in the entire state of Minnesota and all of our decisions will be second guessed and we won't know when that's going to happen.”
The Minnesota County Attorneys Association also urged the governor not to give this case to the attorney general. This is unprecedented.
Because this prosecution was well underway when this intervention occurred, and when the juveniles has already entered a guilty plea, how does that move by the governor complicate this case?
So at this point, the dissents of the 15-year-old’s defense counsel, and I believe they did make this argument, but the judge wanted more time to consider it. They have asked the court to enforce the offer that we made and the fact that the 15-year-old accepted the offer.
So when that case comes back, in a couple of weeks, the judge will have to make the decision about whether to enforce that offer. Some of the implications are huge here. As you know, our office charged two adults, relatively recently, because of information we were able to gain from the negotiations that we made with those youth.
We knew that there were two adults who were involved in this. And if that's different than being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, we were able to prosecute them and charge them because of that information. That would be in jeopardy if the judge decides that this agreement and acceptance cannot be enforced then the case starts over from the beginning.
Subscribe to the Minnesota Now podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
We attempt to make transcripts for Minnesota Now available the next business day after a broadcast. When ready they will appear here.
Audio transcript
Ellison has said the plea deal was too lenient for the severity of the crime, but Moriarty said the deal, which carried a maximum sentence of two years in a juvenile facility, was the teen's best chance of rehabilitation. We wanted to check back in with Mary Moriarty. We appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
MARY MORIARTY: Thank you for having me on.
INTERVIEWER: You campaigned on treating kids like kids. And while kids are impressionable, they can be impulsive, they can be easily manipulated, most folks would say there should be consequences for their actions, especially when it is this serious, taking the life of another human being. Now, in this case, two years in the Red Wing Juvenile Facility does not seem to many people to be an appropriate punishment for such a crime. What was it about the suspects that led you to your conclusion in this situation?
MARY MORIARTY: Well, first, I should say that the sentence isn't only two years in a juvenile prison. It also has 150 months of adult prison time stayed, and that means that if either youth violates probation, or it would have meant either youth violates probation, they could have gone to prison for a lengthy adult prison sentence. So in terms of how we approach youth-- and we have done this since I've been in office for three months now, a little more than three months, is we look at each individual youth, we look at their past, we look at the case itself, we listen to the family, and we try to figure out what makes the most sense in terms of public safety in this particular case.
That's meant that, for instance, we certified a youth who was 17 years old recently-- I think that was in the paper yesterday because of his age, because of his prior circumstances, just because of where he was in our belief that we could not properly protect the public in the juvenile system and rehabilitate him. And so with talking about the 15-year-old-- and I should also emphasize that our law says that he is in juvenile court. In other words, there's a presumption that he should be in juvenile court.
The only way his case could actually be handled in adult court is if we made what's called a certification petition, and a judge agreed that we had proven that he could not be rehabilitated.
INTERVIEWER: You mentioned the family--
MARY MORIARTY: Go ahead.
INTERVIEWER: Go ahead. Finish your thought, and I'll ask about the family.
MARY MORIARTY: Yeah, so what I wanted to say about that is because it is a presumptive juvenile case, nothing about this young person is public, not his psychological profile. Nothing is public about his case. And so we in this office are the only people who actually know anything about him and his history and what psychologists have said.
The attorney general doesn't know that. The governor doesn't know that. And anybody weighing in on this also doesn't know about that. And so we made the specific decision in this case that our best chance of public safety was to rehabilitate him in the youth system while also having a very lengthy adult sentence hanging over his head.
INTERVIEWER: Let me ask you about the family. You mentioned that you talked to the families. I would bet the McKeever family would disagree with you, that they feel that they have been hurt in this situation. What of them?
MARY MORIARTY: Yes. I continue to express my deepest condolences to the family. They are experiencing something unimaginable, and they are grief stricken. And so I understand their request. I did meet with them, and we did talk about that very issue because they felt that the office was not listening to what their desires were on the case.
And I did listen the meeting was for over an hour. In answer to that particular question, I said to them that as the county attorney in our office, we have to create space for victims and families to talk about what they want to see happen. We have to create space for their grief, and we have to take into consideration what they want as well as other factors to determine what's in the best interest of public safety. And so even in that conversation, they responded, OK, so that means you don't necessarily have to do what we want, which is true.
And as I said, I cannot imagine what it's like to be that family. And I also know that my predecessor had a different course of action here. I apologize to the family that we changed direction based on what we thought was best for public safety. That was unfortunate that it happened to them. And I did apologize for that. So I have listened.
I think one thing that's appropriate here is to keep in mind that prosecutors cannot simply take what the victim or victim's families want and just go do that. And one example I'll give you is that-- I don't know if you recall this, but during when the Deshaun Hill case was being tried, the family asked me to charge the principal of North High School. That was not appropriate. There were no criminal charges there.
She did-- and so had I done what the family wanted in that case, I would have done something completely inappropriate. So while we do have to listen-- and I take that very seriously. I personally met with the family and listened. While we do need to create space for that, ultimately, we have to do what we think is right in terms of public safety.
INTERVIEWER: Let me ask you about public messaging here. You have said that you rely on science that indicates that the brain isn't developed enough to control impulses until 25. But as you know, there are neuroscientists who say immaturity doesn't equal impairment. There are a lot of teens out there who can rein themselves in and behave appropriately. Couldn't some juvenile offenders look at this situation as literally a get out of jail free card?
MARY MORIARTY: So you raise some really good points there, and that's why I go back to looking at each individual case. The brain science is well developed, and I think this is an opportunity to have a really robust conversation about brain development and how we should be using it when we approach cases. And it's also true that certainly not every youth fits a developmental pattern that's the same.
And that's why we go back to we look at each individual youth. And for instance, we certified a couple of 17-year-olds because we felt that given where they were, given the amount of time we had to work with them in the juvenile system, given their histories and everything that we factored in, we just couldn't ensure public safety.
In terms of deterrence, that's a great point, and I think it's a great point to talk about youth. Youth typically when they're-- very many of them are very impulsive. And so when people say you have to send a youth to prison for a long period of time because that deters other youth, that typically isn't how it works. And we see this every day.
We see it with youth who steal cars, who flee from police. Youth don't stop often and think, oh, if I do this, then this. That's not the way deterrence works with youth. There are other situations, by the way, where deterrence works really well, such as in wage theft, which we are aggressively prosecuting where we know if we prosecute wage theft as a felony, that will deter some of the companies that are doing that.
So it's very different with youth. And we have to look at where each individual youth is in their maturity.
INTERVIEWER: So I'm curious here. Can you do anything to fight Attorney General Ellison's takeover of this case? Can you challenge the law in court?
MARY MORIARTY: So that's a really good question. What I want-- what I think people should understand, too, is that there are 87 elected county attorneys in Minnesota, each elected by the people who live in their counties. The Minnesota County Attorneys Association represents all of them, and they voted unanimously to urge the attorney general not to ask the governor to take this case.
As one of them said, if he takes this case, that means there's only one county attorney in the entire state of Minnesota. And all of our decisions will be second guessed, and we won't know when that's going to happen. The Minnesota County Attorneys Association also urged the governor not to give this case to the attorney general.
This is unprecedented because as you know from the statute--
INTERVIEWER: There is some precedent. There is some precedent. There is some precedent in terms of the governor intervening, though, a case in the 1990s. That has been done.
MARY MORIARTY: Yes.
INTERVIEWER: And of course, the governor also intervened with the Derek Chauvin case, but go ahead.
MARY MORIARTY: Those are different. When I say this is unprecedented, it is unprecedented for an attorney general to ask the governor to give him a case and for the governor to do that. As you point out, there are a couple of cases where the governor has intervened, but those are very different.
We have never had a case where-- and if you look at the governor's letter, you can see very specifically, he puts in there, since you have asked me to give you this case, that is why this is unprecedented. No time in the history of our--
INTERVIEWER: I see what you're saying
MARY MORIARTY: --has-- yes, has an attorney general inserted himself into an active prosecution and asked the governor to give him the case.
INTERVIEWER: So can I ask you this?
MARY MORIARTY: Sure.
INTERVIEWER: Can I ask you this? So because this prosecution was well underway when this intervention occurred, and one of the juveniles has already entered a guilty plea, how does that move by the governor complicate this case? And can you wrest it back, I guess, from the attorney general?
MARY MORIARTY: Oh, yes. Yes, so at this point, the defense of the 15-year-old, the defense counsel, and I believe they did make this argument, but the judge wanted more time to consider it. They have asked the court to enforce the offer that we made and the fact that the 15-year-old accepted the offer.
So when that case comes back in a couple of weeks, the judge will have to make the decision about whether to enforce that offer. Some of the implications are huge here. As you know, our office charged two adults relatively recently because of information we were able to gain from the negotiations that we made with those youth.
We knew that there were two adults who were involved in this, but we couldn't-- and that's a different than being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We were able to prosecute them and charge them because of that information. That would be in jeopardy. If the judge decides that this agreement and acceptance cannot be enforced or won't be enforced, then the case starts over from the beginning.
INTERVIEWER: OK. I wish I had more time Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
MARY MORIARTY: No, thank you. And I think this is a tragic case. And as I said, my condolences to the family, and it should be an opportunity for us to be able to have these very difficult conversations about how to intervene and deal with youth behavior right now.
INTERVIEWER: All right, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. Thank you.
MARY MORIARTY: Thank you.
Download transcript (PDF)
Transcription services provided by 3Play Media.