Minnesota Lawyer Blog

At what point and under what terms is a public official entitled to express an opinion about a political matter unrelated to his office? That's the issue in a minor dust-up between Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman and former federal prosecutors Tom Heffelfinger and Doug Kelley.

Freeman remarked in a newspaper interview last Saturday that the controversy over Al Franken's failure to properly file tax returns in California was a distraction from the real issues in the campaign for Senate. (Freeman has said previously that he was supporting Franken since Mike Ciresi was out of the race.)

On Tuesday, Heffelfinger and Kelley chastised Freeman in a letter, saying that he shouldn't have commented on the Franken situation without all the facts. Freeman countered that their letter was nothing more than a subtle show of support for Franken opponent Norm Coleman.

Freeman never claimed that his comments reflected the view of the county or his office -- he was asked for his opinion and gave it. Heffelfinger and Kelley's beef is that he didn't go out of his way to make it crystal clear that he was offering a personal opinion.

It seems Freeman's primary sin was being the only source quoted in the Saturday article about Franken who wasn't a full-time political consultant or mouthpiece of some kind. In that sense, it wasn't it courageous, rather than irresponsible, for him to express an opinion on the matter?

Do we really want to muzzle the opinions of officials because their comments might imply that those opinions might be shared by the official's colleagues?

Speaking of interesting quotes (see post below), Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman (on right) had one in a story Minnesota Lawyer published today ("Clergy criminal assault law survives challenge").

Freeman was, of course, pleased that Minnesota Supreme Court did not strike down the law that makes it a crime for clergy members to have sex with a person who is seeking or receiving “religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private.” However, the court went on to give the defendant in that case -- a priest convicted of having sex with two woman parishioners -- a new trial. The high court found that the admission of certain evidence of religious practice and customs during the trial violated the Establishment Clause.

After consulting his trial team, Freeman felt that the defense had not made sufficient objection to the admission of the offending evidence at trial to preserve the issue for appeal.

“This Supreme Court has too often reversed cases for conduct not objected to below. We don’t think that is a good practice," said Freeman, who may file for a rehearing. (The defense attorney maintains that sufficient objection was made at trial in this case.)

In any event, it is highly unusual for a county attorney to make such a strong public statement taking the high court to task.

By the way, the case is State v. Bussmann.