Olson: Moriarty’s ‘me-first’ approach to Minnesota assassination prosecutions is another misstep

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In the hours and days after the assassination of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman and the attempted murder of a sitting state senator, something notable happened in Minnesota. Federal, state and county officials stood shoulder to shoulder, offering a unified display of competence, calm and shared resolve. Their joint message was simple and clear: Justice will be done.

So when Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, just a few days later, attempted to undercut that unity by publicly lobbying to wrest the case from federal hands and into her own, I wanted to understand why. Why, in one of the most traumatic chapters in Minnesota’s recent history, was she trying to muscle aside federal prosecutors?

The conversation didn’t go well.

The alleged assassin, Vance Boelter, is in custody — charged in both U.S. District Court and Hennepin County with the murders of Hortman and her husband, Mark, as well as the attempted murders of John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Acting U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson has already announced the federal case will be first to trial, with the state to follow. This is standard protocol when the federal government believes terrorism or politically motivated violence is a factor.

So why try to step in front of them?

Moriarty told Minnesota Star Tribune reporter Jeff Day that her office was better suited to take the lead. “This is something that our staff does every day,” she said, emphasizing her team’s experience with violent crime. She suggested that a Hennepin County jury, which would be filled with residents from the community where the crimes occurred, would better reflect local justice.

“We have talented lawyers and talented victim-witness staff, and this happened here in our community,” Moriarty said in variation repeatedly.

She also touted experience. Last year, she said, her office prosecuted 94 homicide cases. Federal prosecutors “typically don’t prosecute most violent crime like murder,” she said.

It might be an understandable argument in isolation. But this is far from an ordinary case and no time for a turf war.

Moriarty further raised concerns that the feds might seek the death penalty, a punishment abolished in Minnesota in 1911. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi will make the call on whether federal prosecutors pursue capital punishment in the Boelter case. That decision has yet to be announced.

What Moriarty’s claim to primacy on the trial process has done is inject suspicion and speculation into what had been a moment of clarity and cohesion.

To some, this maneuver from the prosecutor follows a pattern dating back several years. Moriarty has, on occasion, taken needlessly combative stances — even with allies. She’s been quick to personalize criticism and critiques despite the inherently controversial nature of her post.

She ran and won office as prosecutor in the state’s most populous county after a long and mostly respectable career in Hennepin County’s public defender office. But her tenure on the defense side ended badly, with a suspension and a decision by the state Board of Public Defense not to renew her contract.

Among the board’s chief complaints: Her inability to work with other justice partners.

Moriarty sued the board, claiming that she was the victim of racism and sexism. The board settled, paying her $300,000, while admitting no wrongdoing. In exchange, Moriarty agreed in June 2021 not to seek future public defense work. The next year, she successfully ran for Hennepin County attorney as a progressive reformer and took office in 2023. But certain patterns persist.

Her tenure as county attorney has been marked by perplexing public disputes with would-be DFL allies, including Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison.

When recently asked to explain her position on the Boelter case, she was far more interested in questioning the premise of my questions. She pivoted to a list of grievances — about reporters, about fairness and, yes, about me.

“This seems to me that you come from a place where I am coming from a place of controversy,” she said. “I’m over here trying to do my job.”

Moriarty asserted that she’s held to a different standard than others and treated unfairly, which she said has contributed to fears for her safety and that of her family. Given the current climate, she’s well entitled to raise these concerns.

Here’s the crux, though: Doing her important job means explaining decisions, not attacking the people who ask about them. Public trust is not earned through evasion and defensiveness. It’s earned through transparency and grace under fire.

And while Moriarty’s remarks about fearing for her safety are not to be dismissed, nor should they be used to avoid scrutiny. In the wake of the assassination of an elected official, this is not a moment for grievance politics.

Moriarty has done important work and her office has prosecuted difficult cases. But this is a critical moment in Minnesota history and a time for Moriarty to be a team player. She’s coming up short.

Now is a time for public servants to seek to steady the ground, not inflame it. The cost of public service now seems higher than it has been in generations. That makes the value of transparency and community-building, not victimization, even more essential.

Not so long ago, during her costly, abbreviated prosecution of state trooper Ryan Londregan, Moriarty chastised Walz, claiming he was “injecting politics into a criminal legal matter” before “picking up the phone to gather more information first.”

Now would be a good time for Moriarty to heed her own words.

In our recent interview, Moriarty expressed disappointment at not receiving more credit for her accomplishments. “We have done so many amazing things that I’m really proud of that I know are going to make the system more equitable and provide public safety,” she said.

Perhaps. But rather than applauding her work, we are once again trying to make sense of a controversy that no one else wanted or needed.