State v. Pratt, 2012 Minn. LEXIS 208

Pratt was charged with 17 counts of theft by swindle and 2 counts of racketeering stemming from a mortgage loan fraud scheme as a Universal Mortgage loan officer.
Pratt allegedly prepared false purchase agreements and loan applications containing inflated prices, misrepresented occupancy, assets, and down-payment origin, and steered loan proceeds to his construction company.
Lenders standard practice relies on purchase agreements, loan applications, and closing documents to decide loan approval and amounts, enabling the inference of reliance on Pratt’s false statements.
The trial court appointed Judge Steven Lange; during trial it was disclosed that Lange had been retained as an expert witness by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office in a separate federal civil case.
Pratt moved to disqualify Lange after the disclosure; the motion was denied, and on appeal the court ultimately held Lange disqualified, necessitating a new trial.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately reversed and remanded, concluding Lange’s disqualification required a new trial and addressing sufficiency of the evidence for theft by swindle and the impartiality issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence suffices for theft by swindle	Pratt argues lenders’ reliance on loan applications wasn’t proven	State contends circumstantial evidence shows lenders relied on false info in loan approvals	Sufficient evidence of reliance supports theft by swindle conviction
Whether Judge Lange was disqualified from presiding	Pratt contends Lange’s retention created impartiality concerns	State asserts no disqualifying bias	Judge Lange was disqualified; new trial ordered

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases)
State v. Clausen, 493 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 1992) (circumstantial-evidence standard of review)
State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785 (Minn. 1998) (circumstantial-evidence reliance on circumstances)
State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2010) (jury credibility and independent inference review)
In re Jacobs, 802 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 2011) (reasonable-examiner standard for disqualification (impartiality))
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (factors for determining vacation of judgments due to impropriety)
PepsiCo, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1985) (appearance of impartiality when judge negotiates for employment)
Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2003) (Liljeberg-factor-like analysis in judicial-disqualification context)
Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745 (D.C. 1989) (employment negotiations as appearing impropriety)
DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502, 958 A.2d 446 (N.J. 2008) (appearance of impropriety from employment negotiations)