*1 legislature of the from 1979 member in the oath office—is legal defects VIII, request section The same was made in under article 1994. recall basis for case, in in Kiffmeyer. request because a defect As that constitution Conduct, malfea- oath is wording of the neither denied. See' MinmCode Jud. 3.D(1) (“A as that judge disqualify nonfeasance. Also Canon sance nor case, oath of Pawlenty’s signed proceeding or herself himself Governor requirements judge’s impartiality might reasonably with oath comports office Const, V, 6,§ art. for officers questioned.”). of Minn. branch.1 executive files, all Based records and herein, proceedings ground alleged third
The recall relates the assertion petition HEREBY IT IS ORDERED legis of office members of oaths Tim petition for recall Pawlen- Governor secretary with lature not filed were be, is, for fail- ty and the same dismissed 358.11(1) § required Minn.Stat. state as that, if allege specific proven, facts ure two (2002), of the rather officers but grounds constitute for recall. assertion legislature.2 This houses of A. Blatz Kathleen /s/ in which Kiffmeyer, in In re is discussed Justice Chief peti that the undersigned determined that, proven, facts if allege tion failed of the grounds for recall
would constitute The for nonfeasance.
secretary of state facts matter not state
petition in this does Pawlenty even
indicating that Governor alleged of section
knew of an violation
358.11(1); his to act on failure Minnesota, Appellant, re or as repeated, intentional STATE 211C.01, 3; or quired by section subd. serious, required any such failure was STREIFF, Kathryn Lorraine VIII, section 6 the constitu by article Respondent. tion. No. C8-02-1857. facts specific fails to state petition which, grounds proven, would constitute Supreme Court of Minnesota. is, dismissed. accordingly, for recall. Jan. 2004. request also
Petitioners submitted participation recuse undersigned matter, in this based administration Pawlenty
the oath of office Governor legislature,
and members of disqualified oath to hold or exercise 1. To extent the asserted defect in the challenge validity office; they prosecuted usurpa- based on should be Constitution a recall office; Restructured legislation governor signed tion of raising petition proper is not the avenue for legislature had members no that the challenge. deciding such enact; governor "refused and the illegal rectify this ac- unconstitutional goes because petition on to assert that tivity." filed, all legislators so the oaths of were not legislature are and officers of the members *2 Hatch, General, Attorney Paul,
Mike St. MN; Schmitz, Raymond F. Olmsted County Rochester, MN, Attorney, Helen Brosnahan, Special R. Assistant Olmsted County Attorney, County Dakota Judicial Center, MN, Hastings, for Appellant. Rochester, Kennedy, MN, Duane A. Respondent.
OPINION HANSON, Justice. (Streiff)
Respondent Kathryn L. Streiff felonies, with two criminal operation vehicular resulting substantial 609.21, § of the accident. harm as result When MinmStat. bodily harm under 2a(4) (2002), James discovered his medical records and criminal vehicular subd. county attorney’s crime had been released the scene leaving operation 2a(7) prosecute § office and were used to his subd. under Minn.Stat. *3 wife, he sent letters to the Minnesota (2002). prosecutor’s objection, State the Over revoking all of medical in- motion Patrol releases granted Streiffs the district court formation; hospital revoking the medi- plead 15.07 the P. to under Minn. R.Crim. release; the cal information and Assistant gross misde to lesser-included guilty two Attorney, County stating oppo- his The court found Dakota district meanor offenses. the his wife his prosecution evi sition to and the state had sufficient although that job that if trial, a his wife would lose her to it would be concern proceed to dence felony. of a prosecut convicted have Streiff manifest felony. appeals a The court ed charged After with the two felo- affirmed, failed that the state had holding nies, a Streiff filed motion Minn. of the district court’s show an abuse requesting P. that R.Crim. 15.07 she be No. Streiff, C8-02- State discretion. plead a allowed lesser offense. Un- 1702255, *1 1857, (Minn.App. at 2008 WL 15.07, may accept der Rule a district court the collateral con Because Apr.1, (1) a guilty a lesser offense Streiff on prosecuting sequences hearing following [a] “the court satisfied a not manifest felony charges do constitute that the cannot introduce evi- we reverse. injustice under justify dence sufficient submission (2) 5, 2002, jury” hus- of the offense or January On Streiff (James) “it would be a manifest not were involved James Streiff band plea.” grant- The district court in a one-car rollover accident Olmsted objection the motion over state’s ed County. reported Streiff Witnesses vehicle, accepted guilty plea from Streiff to on the driver’s side of was lesser-included, gross misdemeanor side, of the driver’s when two getting was out § charges, violations Minn.Stat. Witnesses they arrived at scene. 2b(4) 2b(7) (2002). The district injured lying in a ditch subd. found James noted that the state had sufficient reported that court Witnesses near vehicle. felony to trial on proceed had off from accident evidence wandered Streiff so to do charges, but found among found trees scene injustice.” court The away. preliminary A effect “manifest short distance (1) factors: James did at relied on five taken the scene breath test of Streiff conviction; felony to have want Streiff alcohol content of 0.162. registered a blood (2) by the family would be harmed Streiffs then to blood test submitted Streiff possible loss felony conviction Streiffs content 0.17. alcohol indicated blood (3) public policy concerns employment; from trooper A took a statement punishment would deterrence and days two after the accident. James James misde- gross of two conviction met could that he not remember stated meanors; (4) an unintend- the offense was accident, his that he and but remembered act; and consequence intentional ed acci- drinking prior wife had been responsibility accepted had Streiff a release trooper obtained dent. her actions. Based on the records. James’s medical af- appeals majority A release, report- treating physician James’s court, holding bodily the district firmed that James sustained substantial ed to accept to show an abuse of discretion the district court’s discretion state failed Streiff, guilty plea to a lesser over district court. State v. objection prosecutor. 1702255, simply at *1. The court stated that WL may accept stated “the court decision while the the final guilty to a lesser included or to an offense prosecute, the court retained on what degree.” sentencing. Id. *2. dissenting argued opinion Carriere, we State v. decided circumstances to show were sufficient (Minn.1980), injustice, noting a manifest that this following question addressed the certified higher for “manifest has set standard court: district “Under Minnesota *4 comparable in injustice” of a context Rules of Criminal can Procedure guilty plea motion withdraw accept a to an of plea lesser Minn. R.Crim. P. Id. at Addi- 15.05. *3. degree opposition over the voiced tionally, the dissent observed that the fac- county attorney?” said: We upon by tors relied district court to If the second Rule sentence of 15.07 injustice constitute manifest are factors interpreted leaving were as to the trial commonly in appear criminal cases complete court’s discretion the decision not could be considered under the accept guilty plea opposed whether to sentencing guidelines support a down- prosecutor, the [separation of *4 sentencing departure. ward n. 1. Id. at powers] argument constitutional prosecutor makes this case would argue prosecu- Streiff does not that the believe, however, have merit. We tion abused its discretion in bringing placed conditions can be on the trial felony charges. ar- Neither does Streiff acceptance plea court’s of such a gue selectively prosecuted that she was judicial danger will in- eliminate of Instead, reason. discriminatory some she prose- trusion into an area reserved essentially argues of potential loss cutorial discretion. objec- employment, coupled with the tion the victim felony prosecu- satisfy Id. To separation powers of con- tion, injustice. amount to manifest cerns, Carriere conditioned the district argues factors do not rise to acceptance court’s of the defendant’s mo- injustice the level manifest and that the on tion whether the can “dem- acceptance district court’s plea less- onstrate to the trial court that there is a charges pow- er violates the can reasonable likelihood the state with- provision ers of the Minnesota Constitu- stand motion to dismiss the at the tion. close case in state’s chief.” Id. We
concluded that can satisfy Separation A. Powers1 condition, this the district court “should to accept plea.” refuse guilty tendered history A review the R.Crim. Minn. Id. at P. separa- demonstrates state’s powers 1980, 1983,
tion of concerns. Prior to Rule 15.07 was amended to place any Carriere, 15.07 did not suggested conditions reflect the condition 3, § departments 1. Article 1 of Minnesota Constitution these shall exercise provides: government "The powers properly belonging to either of the departments: be divided into three distinct except pro- expressly others in the instances legislative, judicial. person executive and No vided in this Constitution.” persons belonging constituting or or one bargain, prosecutorial a second condi- decisions amendment added but the tion, grant the district court could also ‘an unjustifiable based on standard such prosecu- over the motion race, defendant’s religion, arbitrary or other classifica- ” mani- objection “it would be [a] tor’s when Favre, v. tion.’ State N.W.2d accept plea.” fest (Minn.App.1988).3 phrase P. “man- Minn. 15.07. R.Crim. appeals applied The court injustice” is defined Rule 15.07 ifest eight interpretation manifest not discussed comments except Neddermeyer, In all cases. cases the rule.2 to en- where there was evidence sufficient agreement, B. Laio Rule 15.07 has held Case Under force were that the circumstances insufficient Stafford, In State injustice.” a “manifest These constitute (Minn.1983), we held that was error circumstances included: district court crime was defendant’s first offense and offer offense where the trips had numerous defendant made likeli- demonstrated reasonable proof *5 to the the Chicago Twin Cities to resolve a mo- that the state could withstand hood Gilmartin, charges, State v. charged tion to dismiss on the offense. (2) 294, (Minn.App.1996); 297 the al-
We noted that the amended rule also plea day its offer on a on a withdrew the first acceptance plea based lowed but, trial, injustice,” without after court ruled certain evidence finding of “manifest 462, discussion, admissible, simply Hoffa, we concluded 511 further State v. N.W.2d (3) injustice to (Minn.App.1994); it was not a manifest re- 463 the state felony in charge a defendant with assault trial on the quired defendant stand victim, striking degree the third charged plea though even unconscious, breaking knocking punish- would have resulted same 671 n. This has her nose. 340 at 2. Favre, N.W.2d offense, a 428 lesser ment under the amended been our decision (4) the (Minn.App.1988); at 830 N.W.2d Rule version of 15.07. court statute was district believed vague and unconstitutionally discriminato- any by this In the absence of decisions McAllister, 399 applied, v. rily State injus- meaning court on “manifest (5) 685, (Minn.App.1987); 688-690 N.W.2d appeals the court of tice” under accepted the defendant’s the district court developed hybrid parts, test with two paid fine for that he had statement injustice’ stating provision ‘manifest “[t]he suspended been be- his license had P. properly 15.07] Minn. R.Crim. more [of after sus- driving plea stopped like a dishonored fore applies situations 26901, (Minn.App. at *2 rules com- 1987 WL The files of court's criminal Dec.15, 1987) why (unpublished opinion), mittee do reflect discussion where injustice” language includ- “manifest was district court did not the court held that the do ed. The files contain comments submitted by allowing defendant its discretion abuse attorney general by the state and several the court plead to lesser offense when attorneys, objecting to county the manifest bargain offered plea that a had been found noting language possible hearing. sec- accepted prior to the The separation of issues that could arise Waytev. part of was ond the test drawn it. under 598, 608, U.S., 105 84 U.S. S.Ct. (1985), address- where Court L.Ed.2d apparently 3. The first of the test was prosecution. issues of selective es Neddermeyer, C0-87- based on State v. No. delay process Preliminarily, and the we violation note because pension ing accepting was the cause his not act of the payment his court license, objection v. No. having Whitley, State C4- over the 99-726, (Minn.App. 809776 at *1 intrusive of 1999 WL more 1999) Oct.12, (unpublished opinion); ordering stay adjudica and function than tion, the defendant would suffer the same the restriction the court’s authori offense, consequences ty a plea he to a lesser drug than that using legally logically greater was obtained on the impaired driving, stay adjudi his the defendant court’s to order displayed years, had good behavior for two cation. Heibel, C6-94-2295, No. 1995 WL
State Krotzer, this court held that the dis- 1995) (un Feb.28, *2 (Minn.App. at power stay trict had the inherent opinion). published adjudication special where circumstances so indicate. 548 255. Krotzer N.W.2d C. Case Law Related Areas boy a 19-year-old who was parties in- support respective statutory rape having their with consensual terpretations Rule 15.07 referring 14-year-old girlfriend. sex his Id. at concerning guilty our decisions the division of 253. Krotzer entered prosecutor’s charge requested between but stages in prosecution stay adjudication court at other of his crime. prosecution Corrections, a crime. The of a criminal Department remark- move may through po- ing defendant several on the lack of aggression Krotzer’s *6 stages, tential a complaint history issued inappropriateness the of re- prosecutor offender, the or indictment returned him quiring register to as a sex grand jury; plea negotiations; to to placed recommended that on proba- he entry the of plea; ordering adjudication. of a tion under a stay of stay adjudication of stay imposition or a of agreed. victim’s mother The district court sentence; or of acceptance execution of to the execu- of postponed guilty plea the and, tion of a At of objection sentence. one end this over the of prosecutor, the spectrum, bringing charges adjudication bar- stayed placed on Krotzer gaining, probation the discretion rests entire- almost 60 months. This court held ly prosecutor. with the At the other end that the district had power court inherent spectrum, stay the imposition adjudication of of the sen- to in the “furtherance staying imposition justice.” tence or execu- or Id. at 254-55. sentence,
tion of a the discretion rests Olson, In plead- after the defendant had almost entirely with the court. But the assaulting ed to guilty his wife awith not perhaps dangerous weapon, the district court clear for stages that lie in between. stayed prison the 54-month sentence 10 325 at years. N.W.2d 16. The district 1. Stay Adjudication “strong court mitigating described fac- tors,” involving Streiff relies two including on cases the wife’s belief that the stays adjudication support to her view “good defendant was a man” and no dan- authority her, that the ger district court had the seriously the wife was not hurt bullet), charges, (although State struck on arm Krotzer, (Minn.1996) 252 probable and the of the family loss home (Minn. Olson, and State v. 325 inability N.W.2d 13 and the children to continue
837
beyond
authority
indirectly
limits the court’s
programs
“educational
to attend
through
incarcer-
sentencing.
if the defendant was
interfere
high school”
the district
This court held that
ated.
Id.
damaging
argu
Even more
Streiffs
prison
authority
stay
court had
ment
is the decision
this
that
prosecutor’s objection.
Id.
term over
Twiss,
Foss.
In State v.
followed
particu-
(Minn.1997),
are not
But Krotzer
Olson
this court re
N.W.2d
in each
to Streiff because
larly helpful
adjudica
stay
versed the district court’s
place
case,
took
court’s action
the district
guilty plea,
tion of the defendant’s
stage
did not
during
sentencing
granted
objection
had
over the
been
charging
on the
involve a direct intrusion
possibility
based on
prose-
plea-bargaining functions of
or
job if
might
lose her
convict
defendant
fact,
recognized
Krotzer
cution.
gross
ed of a
misdemeanor. We said that
with the
authority
the court’s
interfere
possible
job
“special
not a
loss of
is much
function
charging
“Rather,
Foss.
circumstance” under
it is
sentencing,
stat-
than its
less
consequence
commonly
sort
ing:
offense,
attends
conviction
serious
separation of
established
Under
case.” Id.4
such as
this
rules,
of selective or
absent evidence
Thus,
reliance
Streiffs
intent,
discriminatory
prosecutorial
stay
adjudication
sup
analogy
does
discretion, the
prosecutorial
an abuse
argument.
If
port her
the factors relied
powerless to interfere with
judiciary is
grant
motion
Streiffs
authority.
charging
special
are
circumstances
(citations omitted).
N.W.2d
support a
indirect interference with
court’s
Moreover,
recognize
Streiff fails
through
stay
function
holding
court restricted the
Krotzer
adjudication,
sup
less
they provide even
it later confirmed that
the district
when
the court’s more direct interfer
port for
may stay adjudication
where
by accepting plea
charge.
a lesser
ence
present.
are
“special circumstances”
State
*7
(Minn.1996).
Foss,
This
v.
either on its own
motion
motion of
eral
of a
consequences
plea, including loss
prosecuting attorney
and in further-
employment,
finding
not support
do
justice.”
ance of
prosecutorial
abuse of
See
discretion.
(Minn.
State,
Kaiser v.
We in judiciary’s authority supercede that to establish a “manifest required proof Moreover, holding our power. 15.07 is at least illustrates under Rule justice” executive branch’s high required as that is criminal offense awesome and showing abuse necessitates which may be difficult to exercise in a sometimes hold that the discretion. We prosecutorial just The facts of this case and manner. district court factors relied provide opportunity for me holding our prosecu- an do establish abuse here not explore it is suffi- the issue whether torial discretion. “justice for cient the state to see and remanded. Reversed also be done”2 or whether state obligation additional to ascertain (con- ANDERSON, H., Justice PAUL is done. right thing curring). begin addressing I use of our justice, it easy do but is modify “injus- the word term “manifest” right.
much harder do in Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.07. Much of tice” in this rule difficulty interpreting
our Sir Robert Morton use term stems from the “manifest.”
It is word that “often functions sus- Barrister M.P. agree ways legal writing.”3 I with pect vague it “is one of those terms
Garner that Boy”1 “The Winslow lawyers appearance 'create an continuity, uniformity and definiteness join opinion. I in the Under court’s ”4 does) (that not fact exist.’ Minnesota, rules, our laws the State of doctrine, If definition of everyone’s it is uniform, modify' no there would be need injustice” not “manifest But use Rule 15.07. this is not the Kathryn Lorraine Streiff its have injustice often var- case. The definition of felony alleged for her misconduct. doing defining. Nevertheless, individual I to add ies with the separately write Holmes stated justice, As Justice Oliver Wendell concepts on the some comments shortly aide after he declined young This case dem- to a injustice, punishment. corpus a writ of habeas request to establish the onstrates how difficult case: separating pow- the executive branch’s Sacco-Vanzetti line prosecution primary responsibility "The Boy” (Sony Classics "The Winslow Pictures accomplished.” justice is Nat'l is to see that Ass’n, Attorneys Prosecution Dist. National Supreme Court has stated 2. The United States ed.1991). (2d Standards lawyer government jus- duty is to seek "The par- representative ordinary is the of an tice, merely to ABA Standards convict.” sovereignty ty controversy, but to a Justice, Function Criminal Prosecution *9 obligation govern impartially to is as whose Function, (3d 3-1.2 and Standard Defense all; obligation govern at compelling as to its ed.1993). interest, therefore, and in criminal whose case, prosecution win a is not that it shall Garner, Dictionary Bryan A Modem 3. A. justice be done. but that (2d ed.1995). Legal Usage 547 78, States, 88, Berger 295 U.S. United (1935) (emphasis S.Ct. L.Ed. added). 4. Id. foolish, law, boy. practice We treme that it exceeds of what Don’t be the bounds is “justice.” thing There no such is reasonable exercise the state’s objective “justice,” subjective is a which particular to individual an might justified A man feel matter. injustice, crime. To constitute a manifest a loaf of to fill his stealing belly; bread approach the state’s action must conduct might just think it most the baker that, given when a recitation of facts is off, chopped hand to as in the thiefs be citizen, to an average the citizen is inclined Hugo’s Les Miserables. The Victor im- to exclaim “that’s outrageous.” age changes with the justice behold- foregoing With understanding viewpoint, prejudice or social er’s affili- mind, explore Rule 15.07 in I next what function, society But for ation. just punishment. constitutes Punish- agreed body politic set of rules on always ment has been of the human must must be observed-the law be car- system. requires retribution Justice ried out. subject wrongdoers punishment. be A Baker, Lira From Justice Beacon wrongdoer subject must punishment Hill: Oliver Times Wen- Life because a society governed by we are 1991) (Harper dell Holmes 608 Collins law, rule of and it is the rule law that added.) (emphasis recently More permits society. us to function aas civil All home, closer County former Anoka At- citizens receive participating benefits from torney Robert W. Johnson made the fol- society. in a civil We are able live justice: lowing observation about “Now fixed, rules that are more or less thus justice, you play can around with that enabling us ascertain in advance how justice word a What’s person lot. one is others will behave and to have a reason- justice person.”5 another able assurance that all will receive like Because definition can But, treatment. in return for these bene- vary viewpoint, based the beholder’s fits, society accept citizens of civil must requires the law pre- term that is more responsibility of exercising burden cise. is especially This true the case of certain restraints on individual behavior. operates the realm of society, In a civil obey when citizens the delicate balance of power between the law, there moral equilibrium, is a but when judicial govern- executive branches of disobeyed, equilibrium the law is ment. attempts The rule to achieve this disrupted. precision by modifying “injustice” with the word “manifest.” law, person disobeys When a she wrongdoer may becomes a
As who receive used in Rule “manifest” serves unjust double benefit. purpose. useful Not does significantly narrows she law, benefit can, from others obeying circumstances under which a court but she objection, may over the also receive the physical, psychic, state’s a defen- dant’s to a economic less serious offense than benefits derived from her and/or one For a criminal state. conduct. Punishment as a conse- quence its accept plea necessary exercise discretion to of misconduct for a objection, lesser offense society over the state’s civil to maintain and restore its must be so obvious and ex- moral equilibrium. punishment, Through Johnson, Attorney 5. Robert W. at Law County Attorneys 2002 Minnesota Annual County Attorney, former Anoka "The Role of Meeting, November Justice,” County Attorney: Ministers of *10 basis, society face the whether it judges question repays her debt wrongdoer debt, rejoins even then, repaying inappropriate, presumptive, that after and equal and so on a full attitudes that society ignore and does them to condemn obeyed the those who have footing exclusively anger with and retribution. focus punish appropriately A failure any thought law. attitudes trump Should these for the sign disrespect be may even mercy? judge permitted Should be for when there is serious wrongdoer, that heightened nurture a awareness such too little against society, transgression attitudes can blind the court to circum- injustice. By can result punishment that make the actions wrongdoer’s stances soci- appropriate punishment, imposing than evil? pathetic more in- wrongdoer’s respect ety shows my system contention a legal It is the belief and demonstrates terests provide qualities must room for the an au- capacity has the wrongdoer mercy compassion and elements as who was bad—not sick— person tonomous justice that seeks its end re- equation as a citi- capable of restored and is Moreover, sult. these should ex- qualities Thus, society. exists sound there zen stages system at all ist —with punish appropriately basis to and rational police, prosecutors, and the courts. With- a wrongdoer. system mercy compassion, legal out and my brings me to This obvious conclusion just. truly This view is neither cannot obvious question, which has less next system. foreign justice nor our novel role, mercy and any, do answer. What Benja- example, years ago, Justice For ascertaining the play when compassion min wrote we even “Perhaps Cardozo crime? just particular punishment jus- talking that when about find at times retri- people exclusively emphasize Some tice, chari- quality we have in mind is and punishment the basis for bution as ty.”6 just system, in a there is little argue mercy compassion are But when sentimentality associated for the room question present This can appropriate? compassion. They argue mercy judges, I assume the dilemma for virtue, that, mercy is a there while moral prosecu- for the police same is true it can over- danger is a and will be justice, A dilemma exists because tors. justice system. They assert valued compassion are so different. mercy, and toward the anger and retribution compassion gifts that can Mercy and are natural, mercy is an wrongdoer are while They to which rights are not be bestowed. wrongdoer’s in- improper response Shakespeare said wrongdoer is entitled. sulting message society. approach This he it in the Merchant Venice when well with- prosecutors, can manifest itself when wrote: always exception, policy out follow a serious, pursuing the most strained, mercy is not quality sup- offenses
readily provable offense or as the rain droppeth gentle Judges ported by the facts of a case. heaven frequently expressed see this attitude twice plain court, Upon comes to beneath: especially when the time blessed; daily sentencing authority. On a exercise versity Shapiro, Press Dictionary
6. Fred R. Oxford (Oxford Uni- Legal Quotations American *11 gives so, him that and him doing blesseth justice season by bestowing mer- (1) cy. stated, takes: As the court Streiff s hus- band, who was also the victim of her crimi- mightiest mightiest: ‘Tis it be- conduct, nal did not want her to have a comes (2) felony conviction; family Streiff s The throned monarch better than his unduly be by felony harmed conviction crown.7 (3) because she job; would lose her public it system Is wise for us to have a policy concerns of punish- deterrence and permits mercy justice? to season Should ment would be met gross two misde- people grant government officials (4) convictions; meanor the offense anwas power mercifully? to act Does the consequence unintended of an intentional general good welfare and common —the act; and accepted Streiff full responsi- require that mercy be commonweal— bility for her may actions. The court have justice system? I submit that we prevent acted as it did to Mr. Streiff from system want a justice allows for both victim, being twice a first his wife and mercy; otherwise, we become a soci- justice second system. Even ety strict, rigid, unduly that is unbending, court believed that it should do the right myopic pursuit justice. its Jus- thing and act to prevent injustice, it always tice must be our primary goal, but could not do so because the state’s action demand, where justice circumstances true did not reach the limits of what we view to requires that we have the discretion to act injustice. Therefore, be a manifest there in a merciful manner. Having power is little doubt that under the law we are mercifully to act a person enables to do the doing right thing by reversing the Thus, right thing. society a civil must district court’s decision. mercy, it, make room for must want must Our conclusion that the state acted with- it, ask for and indeed some cases must in its authority under the law still leaves a demand it. question that is not for tous answer —it is So where foregoing does the discussion one which I only ponder. can Has take me with respect to the case at hand? the state not only sought to “jus- see that out, As our court’s opinion points done,” but, tice shall so, doing when law, Minnesota injus- was not a manifest it done the right thing? I have no doubt tice for the state charge Marilyn Streiff the state believes it has acted in a felony with a alleged misconduct. manner consistent with legal its mandate Manifest does not exist here be- doing justice. and is Whether it has done felony cause the charge does not result in right thing question. is another an obvious that exceeds the Boy,” “The Winslow attorney defense bounds of what is a reasonable exercise of member of Parliament Sir Robert Morton state’s to charge. Under our successfully defended the boy Winslow powers doctrine, it was the against charges great false sacrifice to court, state, district that over- status, health, family’s and wealth. At stepped its bounds. movie, the end of said, Sir Robert Perhaps the district court acted as it “Right did has been done.” But then he add- in an effort and, to do right thing ed, “It easy justice, to do but it is much Knowles, 7. Elizabeth M. versity Dictio- Press Oxford Quotations nary (5th ed. Oxford Uni- *12 circum- Under the right.” to do harder case, justice system our of this
stances to determine what it to state
leaves I thing to do. trust right as a minister of fulfill its role will question,
justice, will address this hard by doing its discretion
and then exercise right.
what
EDUCATION MINNESOTA-
GREENWAY, LOCAL al., Appellants,
et
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 316, Coleraine, Minnesota, et
NO.
al., Respondents. A03-684.
No. Appeals Minnesota.
Court
Jan.