Despite agreeing that man should be freed from life sentence, Hennepin County judge blasts law allowing it

Hennepin County Judge Paul Scoggin agreed that Jerome Nunn had paid his debt to society for his role in a murder and attempted murder in 1995 and that Nunn should be freed. But the judge said he disagreed with the foundation of the new legal process that got him there.

In an order filed last week, Scoggin granted Nunn, now 49, the first Prosecutor-Initiated Sentence Adjustment in Hennepin County for a crime he committed when he was 19. In 2023, the Legislature approved a law making Minnesota the sixth state in the nation to give county prosecutors the ability to ask the court to reduce the sentences of criminals they believe have been fully rehabilitated.

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office filed Nunn’s petition after conducting an intensive review of his history. Scoggin’s order released Nunn, who has been on supervised work release for nearly two years, from any form of correctional supervision.

Many legal professionals, including Scoggin, agree that Nunn is an excellent example of criminal rehabilitation. But Scoggin used several pages of his order to lambast a law that he views as woefully shortsighted.

His three main arguments were that the Prosecutor-Initiated Sentence Adjustment essentially gives judges the power to serve as parole boards; it does not allow for anyone to challenge the claims made by prosecutors; and it “presses constitutional boundaries” by letting county attorneys and the Attorney General operate as a “gatekeeper to the 298 District Court Judges in this state.”

Scoggin, who was an assistant Hennepin County attorney for 30 years before being appointed to the judiciary in 2015, declined an interview request.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said in a statement that Nunn “stands as an incredible example of a person’s capacity to change.”

“As prosecutors, we seek justice,” Moriarty said. “When the community is no longer best served by a prison sentence, it is our responsibility to consider adjusting those sentences in a fair and transparent manner.”

Nunn was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree murder and aiding and abetting first-degree attempted murder in 1995 for the killing of Abduel Poe and the shooting of John Holmes. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and given 15 years for the attempted murder.

Nunn and another shooter, who was never caught, fired 36 bullets into a car parked outside a liquor store in Minneapolis. Poe died. Holmes was grazed by two bullets. The shooting stemmed from Nunn believing Poe and Holmes had stolen $20,000 and a pound of marijuana from his apartment.

Nunn had no disciplinary infractions in prison after 1996. He entered with a fifth-grade reading level and would go on to earn his GED, three associate degrees and a legal assistant/paralegal diploma. He created a restorative justice program and curriculum that has been implemented throughout the state. It focuses on victim-offender mediation and the Department of Corrections noted its robust impact.

Scoggin wrote that “perhaps the most remarkable aspect” of Nunn’s time in prison is the relationship he built with Danielle Jones, the mother of the man Nunn killed. Jones wrote Nunn a letter in 2000 forgiving him for her son’s death.

Testifying in support of Nunn’s sentence relief, Jones told the court that the murder had ended two lives, “one to death and another to prison.”

Nunn initially refused to acknowledge his role in the shooting, but “through difficult conversations” with Jones he was able to admit what he had done. That has led him to work with others in prison to take accountability for the harm they have caused.

In the 29 years since his conviction, Nunn had filed numerous appeals challenging it. None worked.

Two years ago, Nunn appealed to the Minnesota Board of Pardons seeking to make his life sentence and 15-year sentence run concurrently. The board unanimously approved that request and, four months later, he was granted work release.

Still, because of his original conviction, Nunn was expected to remain on supervised release for the rest of his life.

In releasing him from supervision, Scoggin wrote that Nunn’s rehabilitation is exemplary. His work to make amends with the families of his victims, his own family and “the greater Minneapolis community” suggests an empathy that he did not have when he entered prison.

“Mr. Nunn’s continued incarceration no longer serves the interest of justice or public safety,” the judge wrote.

But when it comes to the Prosecutor-Initiated Sentence Adjustment process itself, Scoggin does not believe justice was served.

“The result here is just, the process is not.”

In a section of his order labeled “Judicial Concerns,” Scoggin wrote that this process essentially turns a judge into a parole board, but “there is no staff conducting an independent investigation” as there is with a parole board. He wrote that it is not the role of the judicial branch to investigate crimes.

“To do so undercuts our impartiality and converts us to a quasi-executive/administrative agency,” Scoggin wrote.

He pointed out that a parole board has a consistent process for considering release, something that is impossible under this new process, where each decision is left to an individual judge.

Scoggin wrote that in considering the sentence adjustment there is no “adversarial system” at play — which is the heart of the legal process in this country. Instead, the court is given a report that is tailored to argue for the release of the defendant. Even though that argument comes from the state, Scoggin wrote that, “A criminal judge by training, philosophy, and firsthand experience is distrustful of making such a monumental decision simply because the executive branch agrees to it.”

Scoggin wrote that any harm associated with Nunn’s criminal offenses is “remarkably absent” from the report by the Attorney’s Office.

He wrote that 1995 was a “rising time of mayhem in Minneapolis” and that Nunn’s crime was “ruthless evincing a complete disregard of human life.” And while Scoggin believes Nunn has paid his debt to society, “It sure would be nice to hear the other side; if only to reject it.”

Lastly, he said county attorneys and the Attorney General are elected officials with “deeply held sentencing philosophies.” That means while some county attorneys might push for these orders, others will not. That invites “widely inconsistent results.”

“We live in highly polarized times and some of that polarization aligns with geography,” Scoggin writes. “It seems patently unfair that if Mr. Nunn committed this crime in a jurisdiction lead by a prosecutor who carries a dim view of early release for murderers, he would have no shot to show he is worthy of relief.”

While noting that he doesn’t want his concerns to take away from the order and Nunn’s earned freedom, Scoggin wrote that he believes the Legislature has created a process with clear limitations that will spark legal challenges.

Just as importantly, it could undermine the goal of a more equitable justice system, Scoggin wrote.

“The inevitable inconsistency in results inherent in the scheme may make disparity in sentencing worse,” he wrote.