A Minnesota CSC Defense Lawyer Explains the Critical Evidence Rules You Must Understand When Fighting Sex Crime Allegations
You’ve been accused of Criminal Sexual Conduct. The words alone are enough to shatter your world. Suddenly, you’re thrust into a legal nightmare where the rules of the game seem designed to ensure your conviction before you even step into a courtroom. You know you have a story to tell, evidence to present, but you’re quickly discovering that what seems fair and relevant to you might not even be allowed. This isn’t just about the accusation; it’s about the very specific, often harsh, rules of evidence that will dictate what a judge and jury get to hear—and what they won’t—in a Minnesota sex crime case. You feel like the deck is stacked against you, and in many ways, without the right legal guidance, it is.
You didn’t ask to be here, facing the terrifying prospect of prison, lifelong sex offender registration, and the destruction of your reputation and future. But now that you are, you must understand that Minnesota has unique and powerful laws, specifically Minnesota Statute § 609.347, that govern the evidence in these sensitive cases. These aren’t just abstract legal theories; they are the battlefield on which your case will be fought.
I am a Minnesota criminal defense attorney. I have defended people just like you against Criminal Sexual Conduct charges across this state – in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth, and in counties like Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, and Anoka. I’ve seen firsthand how these evidentiary rules are used by prosecutors in Bloomington, Plymouth, and Maple Grove, and how critical it is to have a lawyer who not only understands them but knows how to aggressively challenge them and strategically navigate them. You don’t have to decipher these complex rules alone, and you certainly shouldn’t face a prosecutor armed with them without an equally prepared advocate on your side.
What Minnesota’s Unique Sex Crime Evidence Rules Mean for Your Defense
When you’re charged with a crime like Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) in Minnesota, it’s not just the facts of the alleged incident that matter; it’s also what evidence the court will allow to be presented. Minnesota Statute § 609.347 doesn’t define a crime itself, but it lays out a very specific set of rules about what can and cannot be used as evidence in a CSC prosecution. Think of it as the rulebook for the trial. This statute is designed, in large part, to protect alleged victims from certain types of questioning and evidence, but in doing so, it can make defending yourself incredibly challenging if you don’t know how to navigate its complexities.
These rules cover everything from whether an accuser’s testimony needs to be backed up by other evidence (corroboration), to whether you can bring up an accuser’s past sexual history, and even what a judge can tell a jury. For someone facing a CSC accusation in St. Cloud or Eagan, understanding that the accuser’s word alone might be enough for the state to build its case, or that evidence you believe is crucial to your consent defense might be inadmissible, is a stark awakening. These rules underscore why a generic defense won’t cut it; you need a defense tailored to the unique evidentiary landscape of Minnesota sex crime law.
Minnesota Law on Evidence in Criminal Sexual Conduct Cases — Straight from the Statute
The precise language of Minnesota Statute § 609.347 is the foundation upon which much of your trial will be built or constrained. It’s vital to see the exact wording that will control what evidence is presented and argued in your case.
Here is the text of the law:
609.347 EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT CASES.
Subdivision 1. Victim testimony; corroboration unnecessary. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated.
Subd. 2. Showing of resistance unnecessary. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, there is no need to show that the victim resisted the accused.
Subd. 3. Previous sexual conduct. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; 609.365; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct shall not be admitted nor shall any reference to such conduct be made in the presence of the jury, except by court order under the procedure provided in subdivision 4. The evidence can be admitted only if the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature and only in the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). For the evidence to be admissible under paragraph (a), subsection (i), the judge must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts set out in the accused’s offer of proof are true. For the evidence to be admissible under paragraph (a), subsection (ii) or paragraph (b), the judge must find that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the facts set out in the accused’s offer of proof are true, as provided under Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence.
(a) When consent of the victim is a defense in the case, the following evidence is admissible:
(i) evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct tending to establish a common scheme or plan of similar sexual conduct under circumstances similar to the case at issue. In order to find a common scheme or plan, the judge must find that the victim made prior allegations of sexual assault which were fabricated; and
(ii) evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused.
(b) When the prosecution’s case includes evidence of semen, pregnancy, or disease at the time of the incident or, in the case of pregnancy, between the time of the incident and trial, evidence of specific instances of the victim’s previous sexual conduct is admissible solely to show the source of the semen, pregnancy, or disease.
Subd. 4. Accused offer of evidence. The accused may not offer evidence described in subdivision 3 except pursuant to the following procedure:
(a) A motion shall be made by the accused at least three business days prior to trial, unless later for good cause shown, setting out with particularity the offer of proof of the evidence that the accused intends to offer, relative to the previous sexual conduct of the victim;
(b) If the court deems the offer of proof sufficient, the court shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury, if any, and in such hearing shall allow the accused to make a full presentation of the offer of proof;
(c) At the conclusion of the hearing, if the court finds that the evidence proposed to be offered by the accused regarding the previous sexual conduct of the victim is admissible under subdivision 3 and that its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its inflammatory or prejudicial nature, the court shall make an order stating the extent to which evidence is admissible. The accused may then offer evidence pursuant to the order of the court;
(d) If new information is discovered after the date of the hearing or during the course of trial, which may make evidence described in subdivision 3 admissible, the accused may make an offer of proof pursuant to clause (a) and the court shall order an in camera hearing to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible by the standards herein.
Subd. 5. Prohibiting instructing jury on certain points. In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, the court shall not instruct the jury to the effect that:
(a) it may be inferred that a victim who has previously consented to sexual intercourse with persons other than the accused would be therefore more likely to consent to sexual intercourse again; or
(b) the victim’s previous or subsequent sexual conduct in and of itself may be considered in determining the credibility of the victim; or
(c) criminal sexual conduct is a crime easily charged by a victim but very difficult to disprove by an accused because of the heinous nature of the crime; or
(d) the jury should scrutinize the testimony of the victim any more closely than it should scrutinize the testimony of any witness in any felony prosecution.
Subd. 6. Psychotherapy evidence. (a) In a prosecution under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; 609.3453; 609.3458; or Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, involving a psychotherapist and patient, evidence of the patient’s personal or medical history is not admissible except when:
(1) the accused requests a hearing at least three business days prior to trial and makes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the history; and
(2) the court finds that the history is relevant and that the probative value of the history outweighs its prejudicial value.
(b) The court shall allow the admission only of specific information or examples of conduct of the victim that are determined by the court to be relevant. The court’s order shall detail the information or conduct that is admissible and no other evidence of the history may be introduced.
(c) Violation of the terms of the order is grounds for mistrial but does not prevent the retrial of the accused.
Subd. 7. Effect of statute on rules. Rule 412 of the Rules of Evidence is superseded to the extent of its conflict with this section.
Unpacking Key Provisions of Minnesota Statute § 609.347
This statute is dense, but several provisions dramatically shape how your Criminal Sexual Conduct case will proceed. As your attorney, I would meticulously analyze how each subdivision applies to the facts of your case and how we can use them—or challenge their application—to your advantage.
- Victim’s Testimony Needs No Corroboration (Subd. 1): This is one of the most impactful rules. It means that the accuser’s testimony, by itself, can be enough for the state to get a conviction. There is no legal requirement for any other evidence—no DNA, no eyewitnesses, no medical records—to back up their story. In a “he said, she said” case, this provision gives enormous weight to the accuser’s words alone, making a strong cross-examination and impeachment strategy absolutely critical for your defense.
- No Requirement to Show Victim Resistance (Subd. 2): This rule states that the prosecution doesn’t need to prove the alleged victim physically resisted you. This counters outdated myths about how a “true” victim should react during an assault. While this makes sense from a victim protection standpoint, for the accused, it can mean that a lack of resistance cannot be pointed to as evidence of consent, making it harder to argue that the encounter was consensual if that is your defense.
- Strict Limits on Evidence of Victim’s Prior Sexual Conduct (Subd. 3 & 4 – “Rape Shield Law”): This is often the most contentious part of the statute for defendants. Generally, you cannot introduce evidence about the accuser’s past sexual history with other people. The idea is to prevent irrelevant and prejudicial information from turning the trial into an attack on the accuser’s character.
- Narrow Exceptions: There are only a few very specific, hard-to-meet exceptions. You might be allowed to introduce evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual conduct with you if consent is your defense. Another exception allows evidence of a past fabricated allegation of sexual assault by the accuser if it shows a “common scheme or plan.” A third allows evidence of prior sexual conduct to show the source of semen, pregnancy, or disease if that is at issue.
- Strict Procedure: To even try to use this evidence, your attorney must file a specific motion before trial and convince a judge in a separate hearing (outside the jury’s presence) that the evidence is relevant and its value isn’t outweighed by its potential to prejudice the jury. This is a high bar.
- Prohibited Jury Instructions (Subd. 5): This section dictates what a judge cannot tell the jury. For example, the judge cannot instruct the jury that someone who has consented to sex with others in the past is more likely to consent again, or that an accuser’s testimony should be scrutinized more closely than other witnesses. These prohibitions limit certain arguments your defense attorney might otherwise make about an accuser’s credibility or the nature of the charge.
- Limits on Psychotherapy Evidence (Subd. 6): If the accuser has seen a psychotherapist, their personal or medical history from therapy is generally not admissible. There’s a high procedural bar here too, requiring a pre-trial motion and a finding by the judge that the specific history is highly relevant and its value outweighs its prejudicial nature. This can make it difficult to access information that might be pertinent to an accuser’s credibility or mental state.
Penalties You Face Under a CSC Charge Governed by These Rules
While Minnesota Statute § 609.347 itself doesn’t carry direct penalties, it applies to Criminal Sexual Conduct prosecutions that absolutely do. If you are convicted of a CSC offense in Minnesota, where these evidence rules have shaped your trial, the consequences are among the most severe in the criminal justice system. It is crucial to understand what is at stake.
Felony Conviction and Lengthy Prison Sentences
- First-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct: Up to 30 years in prison and a $40,000 fine.
- Second-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct: Up to 25 years in prison and a $35,000 fine.
- Third-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct: Up to 15 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.
- Fourth-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct: Up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine.
- Fifth-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct: While it can be a gross misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail, $3,000 fine), it can also be a felony with up to 7 years in prison and a $14,000 fine, especially for repeat offenses or certain circumstances.
Mandatory Sex Offender Registration
A conviction for most felony-level CSC offenses will result in mandatory registration as a predatory offender in Minnesota. This is often a lifetime requirement, severely restricting where you can live, work, and even travel. It includes public notification, making your name, address, and offense details available to your community.
Conditional Release
Even after serving a prison sentence, you will likely face a lengthy period of intensive supervised “conditional release,” which can last for 10 years or even for life. Violating the strict terms of conditional release can send you right back to prison.
How § 609.347 Plays Out in Real Minnesota Courtrooms
These evidentiary rules are not abstract legal concepts; they have a profound, practical impact on how your CSC case unfolds in court, whether it’s in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or any other jurisdiction in Minnesota.
The “He Said, She Said” Case in Hennepin County
Imagine you are accused of CSC in Minneapolis. There are no other witnesses, no DNA, just your word against the accuser’s. Under § 609.347, Subd. 1, the prosecutor can take your case to trial knowing that the accuser’s testimony alone, if believed by the jury, is legally sufficient for a conviction. My role here would be to conduct a devastatingly thorough cross-examination of the accuser, exposing inconsistencies, motives to lie, and any other weaknesses in their story, because their credibility is the entire case.
The Consent Defense Barred in Ramsey County
You’re facing charges in St. Paul, and your defense is that the sexual contact was consensual. You know the accuser has a history of making similar claims against others that later proved to be exaggerated or false. However, under Subd. 3 (the Rape Shield Law), introducing this evidence about the accuser’s past sexual conduct with other people is incredibly difficult. We would have to file a specific pre-trial motion and potentially argue that their past allegations were “fabricated” as part of a “common scheme or plan”—a very high legal standard to meet.
Introducing Prior Relationship Evidence in Duluth
Suppose you’re accused in Duluth by someone you had a previous consensual sexual relationship with. Your defense is that this encounter was also consensual, part of your ongoing pattern. Under § 609.347, Subd. 3(a)(ii), evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct with the accused can be admissible if consent is a defense. As your attorney, I would file the necessary motion to get a hearing and argue for the admission of this crucial evidence to show the context of your relationship and support your consent claim.
Challenging Jury Instructions in Olmsted County
During a trial in Rochester, the prosecutor might heavily emphasize that the accuser showed no signs of physical resistance. The judge, however, is bound by § 609.347, Subd. 2 (no need to show resistance) and Subd. 5 (prohibited jury instructions). The judge cannot instruct the jury that they should scrutinize the victim’s testimony more closely or that lack of resistance implies consent. My job would be to ensure these rules are followed, but also to find other permissible ways to challenge the accuser’s narrative and highlight evidence of consent if that’s your defense.
Legal Defenses: Navigating Minnesota’s CSC Evidence Rules
Being charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct when these evidentiary rules are in play feels like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. However, an experienced Minnesota CSC defense attorney knows how to work within these rules, challenge their application, and build a powerful defense. Your defense isn’t just about denying the charge; it’s about strategically dismantling the prosecution’s case within the framework of § 609.347.
The core of a successful defense in these cases often revolves around credibility. Since the accuser’s testimony alone can be enough, attacking that credibility—through meticulous investigation, skillful cross-examination, and highlighting inconsistencies or motives to fabricate—becomes paramount. We must also be prepared to aggressively litigate the admissibility of any evidence you want to present, especially concerning prior interactions with the accuser or other relevant context, by making sophisticated legal arguments in pre-trial motions and hearings as required by Subd. 4.
Rigorous Cross-Examination of the Accuser
Since the accuser’s testimony is central, a thorough and penetrating cross-examination is essential. This is where we can expose inconsistencies between their trial testimony and prior statements to police, medical staff, or others. We can explore potential motives for making a false accusation, biases, or memory flaws. While § 609.347 restricts certain topics (like general sexual history), it does not prevent a skilled attorney from challenging the accuser’s overall truthfulness and reliability on permissible grounds.
- Inconsistent Statements: People’s stories change. We will compare every statement the accuser has made, looking for contradictions that undermine their credibility. A small inconsistency can create significant reasonable doubt.
- Motive to Fabricate: Is there a reason the accuser might be lying? A messy breakup, jealousy, anger, regret, or an attempt to cover up other behavior? We will investigate all possible motives that can be legally presented to the jury.
Challenging the Prosecution’s Narrative
Even if the accuser’s testimony needs no corroboration, the prosecution still bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We will scrutinize every piece of their case, looking for weaknesses.
- Lack of Supporting Evidence (Even if Not Legally Required): While not required, the absence of corroborating evidence (DNA, injuries consistent with force, eyewitnesses, prompt outcry to friends that is consistent) can still be argued to the jury as a reason to doubt the accuser’s story. We can emphasize what the state didn’t prove or find.
- Alternative Explanations: If there’s physical evidence, like DNA, we might argue it proves contact but not that the contact was non-consensual. We can present an alternative narrative that fits the evidence but points to a consensual encounter or a misunderstanding.
Strategic Use of Admissible Defense Evidence (Pre-Trial Motions)
If there is evidence of your prior relationship with the accuser, or, in very rare cases, evidence of a prior fabricated allegation by the accuser, we must follow the strict procedures in Subd. 4 to seek its admission.
- Motions Regarding Prior Sexual Conduct: If you had a prior consensual sexual relationship with the accuser, this is often admissible under § 609.347, Subd. 3(a)(ii) when consent is the defense. I will file a detailed motion and argue forcefully at the pre-trial hearing to get this evidence before the jury, as it can be crucial to showing a pattern of consensual activity.
- Challenging the Accuser’s “Common Scheme or Plan”: The exception allowing evidence of prior fabricated allegations is very narrow. It requires proving not just that prior allegations were made, but that they were fabricated as part of a common scheme. This requires intense investigation and a strong offer of proof.
Ensuring Your Constitutional Rights Are Protected
Despite the restrictive nature of § 609.347, you still have fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to confront your accuser, the right to present a defense, and the right to a fair trial.
- Right to Confrontation: We will ensure you have a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and other state witnesses.
- Due Process: If the application of these evidence rules in your specific case would effectively deny you the ability to present a meaningful defense, we may be able to argue that it violates your due process rights. These are complex constitutional arguments but can be vital.
Minnesota CSC Evidence Rules FAQs — What You Need to Know Now
Can I bring up the accuser’s sexual past at my trial?
Generally, no. Minnesota Statute § 609.347 (the “Rape Shield Law”) heavily restricts introducing evidence of an accuser’s previous sexual conduct with other people. There are very narrow exceptions, such as prior sexual conduct with you (the accused) if consent is a defense, or if you can prove a prior fabricated allegation as part of a common scheme.
What if the accuser consented to sex with me before?
This is one of the key exceptions. If your defense is that the sexual act was consensual, evidence of your prior consensual sexual history with the accuser may be admissible. Your attorney must file a specific pre-trial motion and get a court order allowing it.
What if the accuser has lied about sexual assault in the past?
This is extremely difficult to get admitted. You can’t just say they’ve lied. Under § 609.347, you would need to prove (by a preponderance of the evidence in a pre-trial hearing) that the accuser made prior allegations of sexual assault which were fabricated and that this shows a “common scheme or plan.” This is a very high bar.
Is the accuser’s word enough to convict me?
Legally, yes. Subdivision 1 of § 609.347 states that the testimony of a victim “need not be corroborated.” This means if a jury believes the accuser beyond a reasonable doubt, their testimony alone can be sufficient for a conviction, even with no other physical or eyewitness evidence.
Does it matter if the accuser didn’t fight back or scream?
No. Subdivision 2 states there is “no need to show that the victim resisted the accused.” The law recognizes that people react to trauma in different ways, and freezing or not physically resisting does not mean consent was given. You cannot argue that lack of resistance equals consent.
Can the jury be told that it’s easy to accuse someone of this crime?
No. Subdivision 5(c) specifically prohibits the judge from instructing the jury that “criminal sexual conduct is a crime easily charged by a victim but very difficult to disprove by an accused.” This prevents the defense from making this classic (and now disallowed) argument.
What if the accuser was drinking or using drugs?
An accuser’s intoxication can be relevant to whether they had the mental capacity to consent. However, this is different from their general “previous sexual conduct.” Your attorney would need to carefully consider how to approach this, as simply being intoxicated does not automatically mean evidence of their sexual history becomes admissible.
Can I get access to the accuser’s therapy records?
Generally, no. Subdivision 6 places strict limits on accessing a patient’s (accuser’s) psychotherapy records. Your attorney would need to file a pre-trial motion and convince a judge that specific information in those records is highly relevant and its value outweighs its prejudicial nature and the accuser’s privacy interests.
What is an “offer of proof”?
An “offer of proof” (mentioned in Subd. 4) is a detailed explanation your attorney makes to the judge, outside the jury’s hearing, describing the evidence you want to introduce (like evidence of the accuser’s prior conduct with you) and why it’s legally admissible and relevant.
What happens if my attorney tries to bring up prohibited evidence?
If your attorney violates a court order regarding the admission of evidence under § 609.347, it can be grounds for a mistrial (Subd. 6(c)). This means the trial would have to start over, and it could prejudice your case. This is why you need an attorney who deeply understands and respects these rules.
How can I defend myself if these rules are so restrictive?
It’s challenging, but not impossible. A strong defense focuses on attacking the accuser’s credibility through permissible cross-examination, highlighting inconsistencies in their story, pointing out the lack of corroborating evidence (even if not required), and presenting any legally admissible evidence that supports your innocence or a consent defense.
Do these rules apply in every Minnesota county?
Yes. Minnesota Statute § 609.347 is a state law and applies to all Criminal Sexual Conduct prosecutions throughout Minnesota, whether you are in Minneapolis, Duluth, or a smaller jurisdiction.
Why is it so hard to get evidence about the accuser admitted?
These “Rape Shield Laws” were enacted to protect alleged victims from irrelevant and often harassing questions about their private lives that are not directly related to the specific charge against the accused. The goal is to encourage victims to report crimes without fear of having their entire past put on trial.
Can I still argue that the accuser is not credible?
Absolutely. While § 609.347 limits what kind of evidence you can use to attack credibility (e.g., not their general sexual past), it does not prevent you from arguing they are not credible based on inconsistent statements, motive to lie, bias, or other factors that are fair game in any criminal trial.
If consent is my defense, what’s the most important evidence rule?
Subdivision 3(a)(ii), which allows for evidence of the accuser’s previous sexual conduct with you, the accused, is often the most critical rule if your defense is consent in the context of an existing or past relationship. Successfully getting this evidence admitted can be pivotal.
What a Criminal Sexual Conduct Conviction (Shaped by § 609.347) Could Mean for Your Life
If you are convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct in a trial governed by these strict evidence rules, the impact on your life will be catastrophic and permanent. It is not just about serving time; it’s about a future forever altered.
Decades Behind Bars
As outlined earlier, the potential prison sentences for felony CSC convictions in Minnesota are measured in years, often decades. You face losing a significant portion of your life to incarceration, away from your family, career, and community.
The Lifelong Stigma of Sex Offender Registration
Mandatory, often lifetime, sex offender registration is a hallmark of a CSC conviction. This public branding limits where you can live (away from schools, parks, daycare centers in places like Minneapolis or Rochester), where you can work, and even simple things like attending your child’s school events. It is a constant source of shame and social ostracism.
Destruction of Career and Financial Stability
A felony CSC conviction will make it extraordinarily difficult to find or keep meaningful employment. Many professions will be permanently closed to you. The financial strain on you and your family can be immense, leading to a lifetime of economic hardship.
Loss of Fundamental Rights and Opportunities
You will lose your right to possess a firearm for life. Depending on your sentence, you may lose your right to vote. Educational opportunities can be severely limited, as can your ability to secure housing. The conviction becomes a permanent barrier to rebuilding a normal life in any Minnesota community, from Duluth to Bloomington.
Why You Need a Tough, Experienced Minnesota Attorney Familiar With § 609.347
When Minnesota’s unique and restrictive evidence rules for sex crime cases are in play, you cannot afford to face the prosecution without a lawyer who deeply understands this specific statute and has a track record of successfully navigating it. This is not a time for a general practitioner; you need a dedicated criminal defense attorney who lives and breathes these complex rules.
Mastering the Procedural Hurdles
Minnesota Statute § 609.347 is riddled with procedural requirements—pre-trial motions, offers of proof, and in-camera hearings—just to try and get certain defense evidence admitted. An attorney unfamiliar with these precise steps can miss critical opportunities or make fatal errors. I know these procedures inside and out and will fight to ensure your relevant evidence is heard.
Crafting a Defense Within (and Against) the Rules
A significant part of my job is to build a powerful defense that respects the boundaries of § 609.347 while aggressively challenging the prosecution’s case. This means knowing what questions can be asked, what arguments can be made, and how to impeach an accuser’s credibility without violating the Rape Shield provisions. It also means knowing when and how to argue that the application of a rule in your specific case violates your constitutional right to present a defense.
Holding the Prosecution to the Same Standards
These evidence rules apply to both sides. I will be vigilant in ensuring the prosecutor does not try to introduce inadmissible or prejudicial evidence against you. If the state attempts to bend or break these rules, I will be ready with strong objections and arguments to protect your right to a fair trial, whether your case is in St. Paul or a smaller Minnesota jurisdiction.
The Experience to See the Path to Victory
In cases governed by § 609.347, victory isn’t always about a dramatic courtroom confession. It’s often about meticulous preparation, skillful negotiation based on the evidentiary realities, successful pre-trial motions that shape the battlefield, or a trial strategy that creates reasonable doubt despite the restrictive rules. I have the experience in Minnesota courts to identify the best path forward for your specific circumstances, always fighting for the best possible outcome—be it a dismissal, a favorable plea, or an acquittal at trial.