Attorney General Keith Ellison said Thursday he is pursuing justice by taking over a murder case in Hennepin County after prosecutor Mary Moriarty reached a controversial plea deal with two teenage boys accused of killing a 23-year-old woman.
Gov. Tim Walz authorized Ellison to step in, a decision that came after outcry from Zaria McKeever’s family and others. It also seems counter to Ellison’s stance during last year’s re-election campaign, when he criticized the idea of circumventing a county attorney without their permission.
In an October interview, Ellison denounced his Republican opponent Jim Schultz for saying he might try to sidestep Moriarty if she wasn’t tough enough on crime. Ellison narrowly defeated Schultz weeks later.
“I recognize the fact — and I want to say f-a-c-t fact — that they’re colleagues,” Ellison said of county attorneys like then-candidate Moriarty, who he endorsed. “They don’t work for me, we work together. And because I respect them, they respect me and we cooperate and we get justice done.”
“(Schultz) is making all these noises about how he’s just going to stomp all over them,” Ellison told MinnPost amid a heated campaign that Schultz focused on violent crime. “And that doesn’t make sense to me, not from a standpoint of putting victims first.”
Ellison said at the time that Schultz was trying to “demagogue crime” and said that avoiding an intervention would be a “pragmatic thing” to avoid unnecessary conflict with county attorneys.
On Thursday, Ellison asked Walz to let him take charge of the murder case, writing in a letter to the governor that Moriarty’s decisions were “so far outside the normal course for the prosecution of such a heinous crime, and so far outside of community expectations.” Ellison wrote that he initially asked Moriarty to turn the case over, a request she refused. Under state law, the AG can step in only at the request of a county attorney or the governor. In this case, Walz overruled Moriarty.
Moriarty’s decision
Criminal charges say 22-year-old Erick Haynes directed the two teens — ages 15 and 17 — to break into McKeever’s home last year to target her new boyfriend. Haynes is the father of McKeever’s one-year-old daughter. One of the teens fatally shot McKeever in the confrontation using a gun Haynes gave him, according to charges.
Kare 11 reported that prosecutors under former Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman had moved to certify the teens as adults for second-degree murder charges that could have led to a lengthy prison sentence. But the county attorney’s office under Moriarty instead offered a plea deal in juvenile court for the teenage boys in exchange for testifying against Haynes. That deal would result in two years in juvenile prison and the potential for a longer adult sentence if they violate an extended probation period stretching until they turn 21.
While Moriarty has said the decision was based on the age of the teens and Haynes alleged role in orchestrating the confrontation, the plea deal drew sharp and public criticism from McKeever’s family.
Ellison’s letter says Moriarty’s decision was surprising and that the “community at large” is adamantly opposed to it. He offered to take over prosecution, which Moriarty rejected. The 17-year-old teen already pleaded guilty, and Ellison’s letter to Walz says “it is probably too late to change that.” The 15-year-old boy had a plea hearing scheduled Friday morning.
Moriarty condemned Ellison, saying in a long written statement that he was circumventing voters. She noted the Minnesota County Attorneys Association voted to oppose the AG asking Walz to give him the case. She said prosecuting a juvenile for homicide without seeking an adult certification wasn’t unprecedented.
“Inserting himself in these cases simply because he disagrees with the choice I was elected to make is deeply troubling and should alarm prosecutors across the state,” Moriarty said of Ellison. “This decision undermines the longstanding constitutional authority, autonomy, and responsibility of elected prosecutors. It threatens the very core of a local prosecutor’s well-settled discretion and role as an elected official accountable to the people to prosecute crime in the county.”
Campaign trail comments
Last fall, Schultz, the Republican AG candidate, said he would take an aggressive approach to prosecuting crime. And Schultz said he worried Moriarty wouldn’t prosecute crime to his liking and might carry out some “reckless plans for the office.”
The Republican attorney floated the idea of a law change that would allow him to take over cases without the permission of a county attorney like Moriarty — or the governor. And generally, he said he’d try to intervene when he felt necessary. Schultz likely would have been more aggressive compared to Ellison in trying to overrule Moriarty if he had been elected.
Some Democrats criticized Schultz, including Ellison himself. “This is politics man,” Ellison said about Schultz’s views. “This has nothing to do with justice or law. This is not about prosecuting criminals for the sake of accountability for victims and the public.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Craig Lassig[/image_credit][image_caption]Mary Moriarty condemned Ellison, saying in a long written statement that he was circumventing voters.[/image_caption]
He said he was glad the pressure from family, community leaders and police led Ellison and Walz to “do what should have been done immediately,” which is to certify the juveniles as adults.
Schultz also said Ellison was wrong to endorse Moriarty during the campaign and said both Ellison and Walz should call for her to resign. “I understand the reluctance of county attorneys to have an AG come in their territory,” Schultz said. “But Mary Moriarty is a special circumstance. She’s unfit for the job.”
Ellison’s office didn’t respond when asked if they would like to comment on his campaign statements. But he did issue a written statement on Thursday, saying he respects that county attorneys are elected to exercise their discretion. He also acknowledged it was a rare step for him to intervene.
Robert Small, executive director of the county attorneys association, said a similar takeover by an AG happened once in a 1990s Crow Wing County case under Gov. Rudy Perpich.
“The Governor’s power under state law to assign criminal cases to the Attorney General has been used and should be used very sparingly, and I do not expect to make a request like it again,” Ellison said. “A prosecutor is a minister of justice, and justice is comprised of both accountability and mercy. While I share the belief that too many juveniles are involved in the adult criminal-justice system, accountability for the seriousness of this crime has been missing in this case.”
Is Keith attacking the Hennepin County “Democracy?”
It’s unfortunate, isn’t it, that Attorney General Ellison (the correct way to refer to him, instead of the demeaning use of his first name) decided to team up with the one you would call “Unilateral Tim” to deprive the Republicans of a perfectly good talking point in the next election?
I am concerned that this case will be the first in a four-year reign of error by our new county attorney. Moriarty was deemed unfit in her previous role as chief Hennepin County public defender.
It’s unfortunate that blind adherence to labels such as “progressive” prevented us from electing a prosecutor displaying competence and good judgment. In that regard, this may parallel the story of our last county sheriff.
“Inserting himself in these cases simply because he disagrees with the choice I was elected to make is deeply troubling and should alarm prosecutors across the state,” Moriarty said of Ellison. She’s right that the voters elected her over the tough-on-crime candidate. We all knew what her history and judicial philosophy is and the Hennepin County voters elected her over Schultz. Democracy means the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Schultz ran for attorney general, not Hennepin County Attorney, that was Martha Dimick.
You’re right, I meant Dimick.
I am disappointed by Walz’s decision, but not surprised by Ellison’s interference.
Well didn’t support MM and had a tough chew on KE, but this is the right thing to do whether I like it or not. Seems those ultra lefty progressives trying to do all these good re-imagining deeds ran into the reality of those most effected by these crimes, they want the criminals off the street, and they are a good chunk of KE core supporters.
Two guys committed premeditated murder. If they are 14 or 15, the system has half of their current lifetime to work with them. With those older than that, there is very little time for rehabilitation to deal with them.
If they are 16 or above, I wish our system would allow them to be kept in custody up to age 25 without requiring them to be charged as adult. An approach that lumps all teens together as juveniles creates a one size fits all system that doesn’t work.
For younger teens and pre-teens, an overlooked category, child neglect is involved. The parents of the 6 year old who brought an unlocked and loaded gun to school have not been identified and may face zero consequences. We need to expect parents with troubled children to exert more oversight. We also create more mental health services so they get the help they need, but try to pretend they don’t.
Our current ways of dealing with severely troubled children is deeply flawed. Both Moriarty and Ellison are hampered by it. Rather than pointing fingers at either of them or defiling the Republican hard nosed approach is any better, we need to design a brand new juvenile mental health, social support and criminal justice system. Working on one without the other two is useless.
Adults also need to shape up their attitudes about guns and violence. Settling disputes with guns is something American kids see adults model every day:
You make really good points; however a parent cannot be charged or open in child protection for the sole reason the child committed a felony, unless the parent was part of that action. I would like more details about what the do in those 2 years at Redwing, who monitors it, and what happens after other than a threat of adult prison. We need more attention on these issues vs alot of lighter weight concerns and you need people who have expertise at the table.
“An approach that lumps all teens together as juveniles creates a one size fits all system that doesn’t work.”
I like this line of thinking. There needs to be a better way to sentence older teens than treating them like adults, which they are not. But, not treating them as adults potentially incarcerates younger kids longer than older for serious crimes, which makes no sense.
This isn’t very good journalism. Keith did not criticize Schultz the way Walker describes in the Moriarty current case. That said I am very pleased that he has intervened and hope he opens up a “Hennepin County” section in his criminal division. It’s going to be needed. I think Hennepin voters were nuts to elect her and they’ll all pay with increased crime.
There needs to be some consistency in prosecuting criminals across the entire state. You can’t have Hennepin County giving kids a slap on the wrist for murder, while in the next county in the same circumstance a kid would get 20 years in jail.
It’s pathetic that Ellison had to ask the Governor to get involved. The Governor should have done this on his own volition the minute that the plea bargain was announced, before the 17 year old kid was able to nail down his deal.
Thank you AG Ellison for taking a stand and bucking party orthodoxy. Recognizing you were wrong on the campaign trail and acting against that is admirable. The fact this article that pays brief lip service to the victim’s family, doesn’t mention their activism for justice, then spends the majority highlighting a change of heart, shows what any office holder will face if they’ve kissed the ring but then choose to think for themselves.
Also, thank you to the Star Tribune for being the only local media I’ve seen putting pressure on Moriarty’s office keeping this story in regular public view. I’ve yet to see anyone publicly endorse 2 years in juvinlle detention (not a prison) for murder. But many in the “restorative” justice community wanted this story kept as quiet as possible.
Watching Moriarty victimize Ms. McKeever’s family a second time has been incredibly hard to watch.
Elections have consequences.
I suppose somehow the usual suspects will blame the GOP
Well, I suppose they are to blame for running unelectable candidates, opening the door for the DFL to reek havoc.
The GOP post Roe is the dog that caught the car. Look at last week’s WI supreme court election. 5% shift blue among the rural electorate compared with the 2020 election. It’s been a long time since anywhere rural moved anything but redder.
I disagree with Moriarity’s decision, yet I am uncomfortable with Ellison taking over the case. For better or for worse, Moriarity was duly elected to her job. And I question whether Walz and Ellison would have taken this action if Moriarity were male rather than female.
And don’t forget that she is a lesbian woman.
If Moriarity wanted to stand by her “kids being kids” position, she should immediately act to preserve the Glen Lake Home School. Sending these kids back to unstable home environments like Daunte Wright’s is the problem. Parental guidance allowed an unlicensed kid to drive off in an unlicensed, uninsured car, to smoke pot with his girl friend all the while he had a warrant for his arrest out.
If your not going try them as adults and lock them up in adult prisons, aggressively get them off the streets and into a better environment for them and a safer one for us.
Gun violations, car jacking, protective orders, drug dealing here’s your choice: Be tried as an adult or submit to a stretch at the Home School or Red Wing or other juvenile detention facilities built for a 1-3 year long period: You are sentenced to a High School Diploma. Good Luck in your studies, see you at the other end.
It is an elected official’s job to do what’s right, not keep campaign promises.
When woke meets woke!! These two young men didn’t decide to steal a six pack, they murdered a man. They made that decision, they should be held accountable for it. Amazingly many folks here at Minnpost claim 15 year olds can make huge decisions about their life in certain areas but are too young to be held accountable for killing somebody. This is what happens when the rule of law is constantly being bent and broken. Reducing felonies to misdemeanors, letting criminals walk with no bail and not prosecuting certain crimes has led to a crime spree in the Twin Cities. I am happy the Governor said enough, he should have done it 3 years ago during the “peaceful protests “.
Woke?
What’s that?
Ron DeSantis declines to define it all the while pledging to kill it.
No so called conservative will offer a serious definition beyond libtard smack talk.
Why? Because they know how ridiculous that look and sound while banning the story of Rosa Parks.
Or….
Define otherwise…
“Woke” means “anything conservatives have been told they don’t like this week.”
Nice! The ying to the yang of “define a woman.” It’s like WrestleMania for definition weasels.
It seems kinda obvious to me we all prescribe some degree of subjectively to most words we use. Especially ones with higher degrees of conceptuallity. Aren’t most nouns and verbs simply learned shorthand symbols for our own idea of a concept we are trying to convey? While we obviously have many agreed upon definitions in language, there are words where the meaning changes based on colloquial use, and very subjective catch-all words like this that are constantly being defined by the culture in real time (think cool, pilled, lit, base etc. etc.).
What does it matter if Joe can succintly define woke to your standards, or you can define woman to him (there are some legal ramifications I can think of for the woman side but let’s stay on topic)? I find it hard to believe you honestly don’t have a personal idea of some of the behavior/politics/philosophy one can ascribe to the current use of the word “woke.” I can without a high degree of difficulty, regardless of if you and i agree on the concept as a whole. If I said “that’s so cool” and you disagree, do you say “it’s not because you can’t succintly define cool”? Its a weird argument in my view.
If Joe had a websters definition of woke, does that mean you then agree w his argument?
I highly doubt it. You’re probably too blue pilled to swallow that red pill. And, through my lens, that makes you likely kinda “woke”. Ha!
I don’t mean to lecture you or seem that I’m attacking. I just see this exact discourse go back and forth all day every day, and it has always struck me as much less groundbreaking than the prognosticators seem to believe it is.
Merriam Webster
adjective
ˈwōk
chiefly US slang
1: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
Everyone here who takes the time to compose a post is:
“aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues”
I guess when you care about issues of race and social justice, one has crossed the line. Now, if you choose to say:
“I could care less about issues of race and social justice”
You qualify as anti-woke. Who is signing up for that? Or offer a better definition. Or we can just go with RB’s definition:
““Woke” means “anything conservatives have been told they don’t like this week.””
Right on. With that definition in hand did it convince you that Joe is correct? If not why challenge his ability to define it in the first place?
Anyway, that is not a definition I would apply in today’s parlance. That seems like a pre 2010ish usage. My current personal use would be to describe when progressive ideology exhibits a dogmatic groupthink to the point of comical ridiculousness. I.e 1.5-2 years in juvi for shooting someone in the head in front of their infant.
Honestly I hadn’t even read Joe’s comment beyond “woke.” when I wrote the first part of this. It’s a term I’ve never used outside of my previous joke about you. My critique was not a value judgment on any included content. It’s simply an exploration of your use of a strangely prominent argument that keeps catching my attention. And, I still think it’s weird.
It’s clear there is no “progressive groupthink” here. The governor and attorney general are not backing up the county prosecutor.
The groupthink is whatever cloistered academic enclave spawned the ideas that led to Moriarty’s veiw of “restorative” justice.
Or, the electorate who saw the D endorsement next to her name on the ballot and unknowingly checked themselves into this mess…
In all honesty, I do not know what it means because it is seems to defy definition beyond a lot of folks being “anti woke”.
We have a leading likely Presidential candidate running on the merits of being the Governor of the state where “Woke goes to die” and he uses it in every other sentence. And you think it is weird that one would try to understand it? I’m still trying:
If a classroom teacher describes the story of Rosa Parks is that “wokeism” needing to be banned?
John Lewis and Bloody Sunday?
MLK and the Memphis Trash Workers strike?
And I honestly do not know, but I believe that some “anti-wokers” would say ” Damn right, I do not want my kids learning about that subversive Rosa Parks” and others would say: “Don’t be ridiculous”. And yet both would go on about the evils of woke. Making the whole thing a ridiculous, undefinable mess. Used primarily to divide us.
All these things and more can be covered and still plenty of time for George Washington and the American story with a little Greek and Roman history thrown in too. The anti-woke folks seem to be convinced that if you talk about Muslims, all the kids become Islamic Terrorists. Talk about LGBTQ issues and the kids all abandon their sexual identity. Talk about race and the white kids all are consumed by guilt and embarrassment for things that happened 300 years ago.
So when Joe sees “Woke meeting woke” as the worst of the worst, I am curious. I have read enough Joe and Dennis posts to know that on many issues of the day they are as “Woke” as anybody and proud of it: Just don’t call ’em Woke.
Again, a ridiculous, undefinable mess. Used primarily to divide us.
If you are arguing that ridiculousness abounds on both sides we can shake on that. I’m not arguing merit of the term woke, or that that we aren’t all ridiculous hypocrites.
I’m simply saying our language has tons of words where the meaning is a subjective catch all. I mentioned “cool” before. And, we don’t have waves of public posts where people try to “expose” the user of those terms as less valid simply because those are used. It’s a strange phenomenon.
I guess I’m not sure where you are finding your whataboutism in my comment? Maybe read my response to Edward and see if your response still applies?
I remember the days when woke meant conscious or pretentious depending on perspective. I am not sure if the meaning changed because of some bigotry as you posit? If it did, rather than some milquetoast GOP opertive, i would look into troll/meme culture on something like the chan boards or Reddit before that got sanitized. The churn of language through the internet is kinda fascinating.
Anyway, I personally don’t think lib/prog “anti-bigotry” as you call it, is purely performative. I think most lib/progs have well meaning ideals. Lots of the ideology can be performative, but so can anything.
I do agree with lib/progs on many issues. They make it tough to cheer for them though, acting over serious and incapable of laughing at themselves. (Just try listening to NPR/Mpr post 2020. It’s mostly intolerable.)
Any group so certain in it’s convictions and the rightliness of their mission is inherently blindered by it’s insulation from constructive outgroup criticism. It’s like political incest. You see this in the hyperventilating belief that to question any lib/prog idea is inherently racist, fascist, phobic etc. Different ideas are viewed as right wing or worse, and therefore must be shouted down with closed ears. If only there was a word to describe this ridiculous dogmatic behavior…
Or “woke”?
I wonder if this term gets under you all’s skin so deeply because left leaning folks have a sub conscious (or fully perceived) notion that they own discourse within the popular culture? Maybe this term got away, and the collective inability to control its use/meaning causes some kind of cognitive discomfort? Its an outlier within current language for sure.
Please get your basic facts straight! These two kids murdered a woman. Five bullets.
I am not sure finger pointing or blaming helps. I like the idea of making the criminal’s parents responsible to some degree- especially in violent crimes like this one instead of speaking about how wonderful their kid is. That rhetoric does not help.
Part of the overall problem is getting quality people to run for public office along with the labels assigned to them.
It was great to see Democrats (and Republicans?) finally take murder and felonies seriously in MN. The murders of the young children in Mpls was a horrific one that sticks in my brain as terribly tragic as well. It is sad that yet another person was murdered here. Being responsible for your actions, including this horrific murder for hire, is something we need to aspire to. Perhaps we will finally consider the victims in these tragedies- especially for the victims of repeat offenders and murderers. It is time to realize that teens or adults murdering someone is not normal behavior. I believe our culture values human life. This was clearly murder and now we have even more victims. Really sad.
Can we please have a little more detailed research and reporting on this past history from the article. Thanks.
“a similar takeover by an AG happened once in a 1990s Crow Wing County case under Gov. Rudy Perpich.”
The Crow Wing County attorney at the time was noted, um, iconoclast John Remington Graham. Mr. Graham thought too much was being made of child abuse allegations, and declined to prosecute two such cases. Governor Carlson (not Perpich – sloppy, sloppy!) asked AG Humphrey to take over.
Mr. Graham later left the state in a huff, resenting unrelated sexual harassment charges brought against him. He went into self-exile in Quebec, where he continues to sell his books on secession (pro) and fluoridation of water (con).
Ah yes: Flashing back to my childhood and driving thru Brainerd seeing all the anti-fluoridation signs.
I guess they survived…
this, too, shall pass.