Can I Appeal My Minnesota Case if the Prosecutor Committed Misconduct? An Appeals Lawyer Explains

When you are accused of a crime, one of your rights is to a fair trial. It has been determined that under certain circumstances, a prosecutor’s misconduct can be enough to reverse the case. However, it is important to note that there are circumstances when the appellate court may say that there was misconduct, but not enough to justify reversing the case. The Minnesota Court of Appeals decision from November 12, 2024, is a good example of this.

Vouching for the Victim’s Credibility

In State v. Guairacaja Chafl, the prosecutor argued in the rebuttal to the closing argument that he believed the victim. The defendant appealed because of this. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor’s statement was vouching for the victim’s credibility which is improper. The Court of Appeals held that this was prosecutorial misconduct.

Harmless Error Analysis

However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals did not reverse the case because misconduct is not enough in of itself. The next step is for the Court of Appeals to determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals determined that it was harmless because it was only one statement in a long closing argument where there was not misconduct elsewhere. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Conclusion

If you or a loved one were convicted where the prosecutorial committed misconduct, you should contact a skilled appeals attorney. The harmless error standard makes it difficult to challenge, but with the right facts and arguments, it can be overcome. It’s important for you to act fast because generally the deadline to appeal felony and gross misdemeanor cases is 90 days; and 30 days for misdemeanors. Contact Jack Rice Defense if you want to appeal your case. (651) 447-7650

Peter Lindstrom

Peter is the head of the appellate and expungement departments at Jack Rice Defense. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a felony conviction because of the brief Peter drafted. He has successfully expunged cases involving challenging issues with DWI, felony, and violence against family member cases. At the district court level, he has tried two felony jury trials to verdict, and successfully dismissed a felony gun case on 4th amendment grounds. Peter is particularly known for his intelligence, creativity, and legal acumen.