Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
I was a juror on the rape case dismissed last week and reported Jan. 10 ("Rape case dismissed after lie to judge"). I heard Friday afternoon that the case had been dismissed, which was both a relief and a distressingly abrupt end to a difficult experience. We had heard most of the prosecution's case, but none of the defense case.
The prosecutor had behaved inappropriately and it was necessary to remove her from the case. But I learned from Tuesday's article that it was actually a discretionary choice by the county attorney to dismiss the case rather than to proceed. The stated rationale for this decision does not match the reality of the situation, and the public deserves a better explanation from the county attorney.
County Attorney Mary Moriarty said, "It is impossible to substitute a new attorney who is unfamiliar with the case." I assume she meant a new attorney who is sufficiently familiar with the case.
Could another prosecutor have stepped in? The case was not complicated; it relied only on witness testimony that the rape actually took place and, if it did, that the defendant was the rapist. The evidence was not "complex": there were only a few witnesses. We were asked during jury selection whether we recognized the names of witnesses, and that list was certainly not much longer than six names. Five had already testified.
A further indication that the case was not complicated is that Judge Peter Cahill had told the jury that the case would likely conclude early this week.
Perhaps it is because I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem plausible that basic familiarity with the case would require more than a few hours of study at this stage.
