Klobuchar Is Pressed Over Her Record as a Prosecutor

[left-of-center2012]

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota faced tough questions from a host of “The View,” Sunny Hostin, during an interview on Tuesday regarding her handling of the conviction of a black teenager when she was a county prosecutor.

Ms. Hostin pressed Ms. Klobuchar on aspects of her record as head of the Hennepin County attorney’s office, including the fact that the office did not prosecute any of the more than two dozen killings by police officers in the county in the eight years Ms. Klobuchar was in charge.

A report from The Associated Press last month revealed, among other things, that the police had offered witnesses money in exchange for names and failed to pursue leads that could have exonerated the teenager, Myon Burrell, who was accused of fatally shooting an 11-year-old girl.

“I’ve reviewed the facts of that case, and it is one of the most flawed investigations and prosecutions that I think I have ever seen,” said Ms. Hostin, who was once a prosecutor. “How do you defend something like that to someone like me, who is the mother of a black boy, a black teenager? This case would be my worst nightmare.”

Ms. Klobuchar — who, when she was running for Senate, emphasized the case as an example of her tough-on-crime approach as Hennepin County prosecutor — reiterated her previous statement, saying, “All of the evidence needs to be immediately reviewed in that case, the past evidence and any new evidence that has come forward.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-the-view.html

Link to tweet

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

That's been my problem with her from the beginning.

[LeftTurn3623]

2. I hope she gets the same treatment Pete got on the debate stage

To say the case needs to be reviewed but she used the case and bragged about it to get elected

But we are to believe she wants it to be reviewed?

[krissey]

3. Seems like Klobuchar has worked at addressing the systemic injustices.

I think she will continue to fight hard for exactly this issue. I am glad I listened so I can better understand the attacks that Klobuchar with be seeing forward. I remember Harris being torn down with the same arguments. Harris. Attack mercilessly. I am not seeing an issue here.

[squirecam]

4. More out of context smearing

The defendant was tried and convicted twice. Amy was not involved in the second prosecution.

On appeal, the defendant claimed he had witnesses to support him, but they recanted or failed to show. Even after multiple continuances were given. Amy has called for a further review, and that’s the appropriate step.

The case info is here. For those who want FACTS and not a drive by smear job.

https://cases.justia.com/minnesota/supreme-court/2015-a13-1769.pdf?ts=1423072899

On July 17, 2013, the postconviction court denied Burrell’s postconviction petition. The court determined that Burrell had “provided virtually no additional evidence,” and that the substance of any new evidence was “highly speculative” and “likely cumulative.” The court concluded that it had provided Burrell with opportunities to present evidence from the witnesses, time for counsel to explore possible remedies to secure the witnesses’ testimony, and multiple continuances. The court also held that it had no authority to issue a bench warrant for Brown’s failure to appear at the March 26 or March 27, 2013, hearings because Brown had not been properly served with a subpoena for those dates

[left-of-center2012]

5. more than two dozen killings by police officers

Ms. Hostin pressed Ms. Klobuchar on aspects of her record as head of the Hennepin County attorney’s office, including the fact that the office did not prosecute any of the more than two dozen killings by police officers in the county in the eight years Ms. Klobuchar was in charge.

[squirecam]

8. I watched it.

There was barely a discussion of it because the questioner focused on the specific prosecution. Without the actual context.

Amy was not involved in the second trial. He was convicted again.

The court gave him FIVE opportunities to present witnesses and affidavits to support his claims. No one would provide testimony under oath.

If you have a legitimate question, fine. Ask it. But don’t misrepresent the clear facts of the case. This defendant is in jail due to a conviction which Amy was not even involved in.

[krissey]

13. Thank you for this information. I read everything in the first post, and didn't

get much of the fact with the specific case. So, thank you. Klobuchar appears to have figured how to be a prosecutor yet balance the progressive in her with her job. As did Harris. Yet Harris was raked over the coals for being a successful professional in her AG role. Instead of it being an advantage like it is for so many men in their career, it is used to bludgeon our women candidates.

[squirecam]

16. Yes this is an out of context smear job

You would never know the facts from the interview or the article it is based upon. It was a poor interview and a former prosecutor should get their facts right before discussing the subject on air.

[krissey]

17. That was just the last 30 seconds of accusation. I did appreciate Klobuchar discussing her role

as a prosecutor and what she thought that job meant to her, especially as it related to the systematic racism. I thought it was a solid answer and makes me value her more.

[squirecam]

6. The truth is much different then what was claimed.

Anyone interested in the facts should read the court decision I posted.

[LeftTurn3623]

9. Then why does Amy want the case reviewed

Seems odd doesn’t it?

[squirecam]

11. No it doesnt

As she had nothing to do with the trial, she is free to ask for a full investigation IF there were issues.

But the article and interview blames her for the conviction, which is bs. She was not involved in the matter at all. She was in the senate. The interviewer gave no context for the decision. I bet you wouldn’t even known these facts, had I not told you. And that is the problem with the drive by smear that occurred.

[krissey]

14. A complaint has arisen, address it. Put it under review. It holds up or it doesn't.

That is what a fair prosecutor does.

[Sapient Donkey]

18. I don't think so.

I read it as her being concerned that a very serious mistake may have been made, and is supportive of it being looked into.

What that means to her depends on if something turns up that she knew there was something wrong and did nothing about it, or encouraged it. I don't think there is anything out there that suggests that's the case, though. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what comes from this.

[squirecam]

20. If police coached witnesses

Between the time of the reversal and second trial, it occurred when Amy was in the senate. She was not involved.

This context is always missing from the articles and interviews I see.

[democrattotheend]

10. Good

I'm glad she's being pressed on this because she has not gotten a lot of attention - and thus has not gotten much scrutiny - thus far. So far, from what I have read about the case, I have no reason to believe she committed any prosecutorial misconduct. And her answer - that the case and any new evidence - needs to be reviewed is what I want every prosecutor to say (and mean) when there's a possibility they made a mistake.

It goes without saying that it would be a tragedy if this man was wrongfully convicted (which so far I'm not convinced of). But IMO, the only way it would be disqualifying is if there's evidence that she committed prosecutorial misconduct, either during the pre-trial investigation (such as by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense or if she went ahead and prosecuted despite knowing that the police ignored other credible leads), during trial, or in trying to keep the case from being reviewed after the conviction. So far I've not seen any evidence of that.

[squirecam]

12. There is no evidence

Amy committed any misconduct.

And she wasn’t involved in the second trial. Where he was convicted again.

[Sapient Donkey]

15. AP video about this case

[squirecam]

19. Did you even bother to watch the video you posted?

The alleged misconduct occurred between the first and second trials. Amy was not involved in the case at that time.

You all are desperate to smear her. But all of this stuff is clearly out of context. And anyone who wants the true facts should read the case link I posted.

Moreover, no one has ever shown Amy to be involved in any of the alleged misconduct concerning this case.

[Sapient Donkey]

21. Huh? I just posted the video.

I haven't smeared any democratic candidates at all, and in fact I have probably confused some people with the fact I seem to have "defended" almost every candidate at some point. I also posted a direct link to the AP video rather than to the site that I found it at because I wanted to ensure there was no biased opinions passed along. In another post on this thread I stated there doesn't appear to be any evidence that suggests Amy did anything wrong.

[squirecam]

22. *You* being the people peddling this stuff

Out of context. Those with an agenda rather than getting the true facts out.

[Sapient Donkey]

23. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?

What do you think I am peddling? I searched out the videos and information to help me understand what this is about. I didn't add any commentary because I don't want to attach any of my own biases. I personally dislike it when people post some "raw data" and then tell me how I should interpret it. This is just how I roll.

[squirecam]

25. I didn't mean you personally

Nt

[Sapient Donkey]

27. Gotcha. Good deal.

[judeling]

24. She needs to do a bit better

She can and will.

About two dozen police involved shootings? Over eight years. So three a year. At a time when Minneapolis was just starting to get a hold of its Muderapolis nickname. That seems low. But it isn't and we know because Minnesota reports this and our public records laws are so strong. Should she maybe do what was done to her pick out one that they did take to the grand jury but didn't prosecute? Maybe the Drunk on Franklin and Chicago wielding the saber and chasing pedestrians after 15 minutes of trying to talk him down a cop did shoot him after he after he went after them. There was outrage because the guy was generally liked and had several issues. But no jury in the world would have found the police guilty. This one happens to be on film because the TV crews had time to get there.
I could write a very sympathetic article and use it to inflame the American Indian community.

As far as the Tyesha Edwards case goes there were three prosecuted. Two copped possibly because the driver had his girlfriend turn him in and the other was in the car when they caught up. The conviction did rely on the Targets identification of the shooter, and indeed the guy being shot at was an enemy, that sort of makes sense.

But what really has me upset with this article is they mix the two investigations and pick and choose between the two. That video is only there because Amy pushed to get all interrogations on tape and is the second investigation. Now we have one of the others who was convicted and in jail claiming he was the shooter a decade later. It should be looked at again, but the other person has not claimed the same. Maybe this time he will and an injustice will be corrected or maybe he wont and justice could actually have been served all along. I would note that after several years the other one who was clearly the driver has not named the shooter.

[intrepdish]

28. Shame on Klobuchar

There are some very strange defenses of Klobuchar here which frankly, are mind-boggling to anyone who has any experience with criminal law.

Let's review: she made repeated use of this case in her campaigning in the past even though the case was riddled with problems from the very beginning.

A 16 year old black boy was held for 8 hours and questioned without an attorney or even his mother present though he asked for her 13 times. He maintained his innocence from the very beginning.

There was no gun, no fingerprint, no dna and no 'evidence' other than jailhouse snitching which is well known to be unreliable on its own. It screamed problematic from the very beginning but Klobuchar cited the case repeatedly to show she was 'tough on crime' and even included it in a campaign commercial.

Burell's mother died driving home from visiting her son the day before he was indicted and Burell was not even allowed to attend the funeral. All a part of the 'tough on crime' stance Klobuchar cultivated.

Co-defendants in the case came forward and asserted Burell was innocent. Did Klobuchar press for justice? No. She used this case to campaign and did nothing when it became increasingly absurd after she had set the ball well in motion and built the framing.

Burell has been offered plea deals and has refused to take them.

This is a shameful episode and if it had been perpetrated by Trump as a D.A. people here would rightly be up in arms. Klobuchar minimizes her own responsibility in sending a teenage black boy to prison for life.

And the fact that not one case against the police with over 2 dozen wrongful deaths was brought in her department is still more evidence of where her concerns were. $4.8 million in lawsuits were settled against the Minneapolis Police Department in 122 police misconduct cases for the period in which Amy Klobuchar was the Hennepin County attorney .

There's an obvious pattern here and it's the kind of story I saw repeatedly even as a law student working in legal aid and law clinics much less as an actual professional.

[JudyM]

29. Welcome to DU.

Thought provoking 1st post!

[intrepdish]

30. Thanks for the welcome :)

Thanks! I've been lurking here for years but this particular story and how it was discussed here drove me over the line.

This is the sort of thing that progressives and even just some reasonably conscientious judicial observers working in criminal law have seen quite often through the years from 'tough on crime' prosecutors more concerned with building their own campaigns than in pursuing justice and it's mind boggling to me that it's being so lightly dismissed by some here.

And just a little bit of additional information:

The case relied heavily on a teen rival of Burrell who provided conflicting accounts when identifying the shooter (who was behind a wall 120 feet away).

They never bothered to obtain video evidence from a convenience store said to clear Burell. Others' alibis were not pursued.

Ike Tyson claimed to be the perpetrator for years and the police and prosecutors refused to believe him and cited contradictory evidence...from the initial stage of the case itself!

This case could NEVER have been prosecuted in this way against a well off white suspect.

[squirecam]

31. Ah yes

The first post is kicking a week old thread just to attack Amy while ignoring the facts.

Very thought provoking.

[intrepdish]

32. Apologies for injustice...

I provided facts which no one had provided and which are not contested and which establish gross prosecutorial misconduct from Klobuchar.

You on the other hand, provided some rather curious excuses for gross prosecutorial misconduct to put it generously.

A teen black boy went to prison for life in a case that anyone who has worked even in a legal clinic much less practiced as a DA knows was flawed beyond belief from beginning.

They tried the case in 4 days. With no physical evidence and conflicting stories which were not pursued.

4 days to put this kid away for life.

But again, it was all part of Klobuchar's 'tough on crime' pantomime. In her 1998 campaign, Klobuchar advocated for harsher penalties for juvenile offenders (of course).

[squirecam]

33. He went to prison following a second trial.

I provided facts which no one had provided and which are not contested and which establish gross prosecutorial misconduct from Klobuchar.

A trial Amy was not involved in whatsoever, as she was in the senate.

No one, not even the people involved, has ever produced one shred of evidence that Amy even knew about, much less committed, any misconduct. Or even claimed such.

Your obvious biases are showing.

Have a great day.

[intrepdish]

34. Whitewashing obvious injustice. Sad to see.

Klobuchar and her office were entirely responsible for the first trial. They rammed the case through in 4 days though it was absurdly riddled with inconsistencies any attorney could spot in 30 seconds and which you do not even try to dispute.

Not only did she and her office prosecute the case, they waved the result of their prosecution around PROUDLY as if justice had been carried out instead of perverted wildly and actually used the case in her campaign.

Let that sink in: this perversion of justice was something Klobuchar was proud of and thought people should know about to judge her positively.

Gross prosecutorial misconduct and even 'grosser' political usage of that misconduct all to parade around as being 'tough on crime' and put a boy away for life.

As for the second trial, if you actually looked into the case, you would know that it was compromised severely precisely BECAUSE of the first trial:


"For years, one of them -- Ike Tyson -- has insisted he was actually the triggerman. Police and prosecutors refused to believe him, pointing to the contradictory accounts in the early days of the investigation. Now, he swears he was just trying to get the police off his back.

“I already shot an innocent girl,” said Tyson, who is serving a 45-year sentence. “Now an innocent guy -- at the time he was a kid -- is locked up for something he didn’t do. So, it’s like I’m carrying two burdens.”

[squirecam]

35. I'll go with the court facts.

The case info is here. For those who want FACTS and not a drive by smear job.

https://cases.justia.com/minnesota/supreme-court/2015-a13-1769.pdf?ts=1423072899

On July 17, 2013, the postconviction court denied Burrell’s postconviction petition. The court determined that Burrell had “provided virtually no additional evidence,” and that the substance of any new evidence was “highly speculative” and “likely cumulative.” The court concluded that it had provided Burrell with opportunities to present evidence from the witnesses, time for counsel to explore possible remedies to secure the witnesses’ testimony, and multiple continuances. The court also held that it had no authority to issue a bench warrant for Brown’s failure to appear at the March 26 or March 27, 2013, hearings because Brown had not been properly served with a subpoena for those dates

[intrepdish]

36. More obfuscation

Yet again you ignore the facts about the trial that Klobuchar and her office conducted and why it also made a second trial a formality.

Klobuchar had NO physical evidence: no dna, no fingerprints and no gun. The shooter was 120 feet away behind a wall. They kept a 16 year old minor for 8 hours for questioning during which time he asked for his mother 13 times and was not able to even have a lawyer present.

No white person of means would ever have this happen in this manner. I will say this clearly for you: anyone who has ever practiced criminal law knows exactly what this means. A murder trial with no physical evidence rammed through in 4 days is not how things are done.

Amazingly, we had someone continue to claim he was the gunman for years and not Burell but it was ignored as being 'contradictory testimony.' Klobuchar and her office had their story and were not concerned with examining alibis and testimony. Do you have any idea just how fast a 4 day trial for murder is?

You continue to refer to the 2nd trial while ignoring that it was Klobuchar's gross miscarriage of justice which SETS up that second trial and makes exoneration that much more difficult. It is because of their own travesty of a first trial that they could claim that there was simply 'conflicting testimony'

And to top it all off, Klobuchar proudly used her 'tough on minors' trial in her own campaigning. Not once did she recognize the horrific facts of this case as conducted by her and her office.

[fleabiscuit]

37. Ever heard the statement "that dog don't hunt?"

"Mr. Burrell, who was 16 at the time of the shooting, was later convicted in a second trial and sentenced to life in prison."