To download a printable copy of this document click here
to go back to South Side Pride click here

This memorandum is in response to Petitioner’s request to this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Hennepin County Attorney to file a criminal complaint charging the President of the United States, George W. Bush, with various crimes.  This memorandum also addresses Petitioner’s motion to allow video cameras in the courtroom for proceedings relating to his petition for a writ of mandamus.  For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny both the petition and the request. 

1. This Court Should Deny the Petition for A Writ of Mandamus.

Whatever Petitioner’s, the County Attorney’s, or even the Court’s views as to the conduct of the President of the United States, we all operate under a system of laws with criminal processes designed to be fair and just.  In Minnesota, one of the fundamental guarantees of fairness is that “the decision whether to initiate a particular prosecution is discretionary and therefore normally beyond the scope of mandamus.” State ex rel. Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1977).   Thus in Otis, a private citizen brought an action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling either the Hennepin or Ramsey County Attorney to file criminal complaints against two sitting Minnesota Supreme Court Justices.  A panel of the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to issue the writ finding that it is unavailable to require the performance of the prosecutor’s uniquely discretionary act. 
More important, although not part of the holding in Wild (which is completely dispositive of this case) the Court noted the considerable and understandable disfavor in which courts in the United States and England hold the idea that a private citizen might commence and maintain a criminal prosecution.  For example in Biemel v. State, F1 Wis. 444, 447, 37 N.W. 244, 247 (1888) the court said:

We think it is quite clear from the reading of our statute on the subject, as well as upon public policy, that an attorney employed and paid by privates parties should not be permitted either by the courts or by the prosecuting attorney to assist in the trial of such criminal cases.  The laws have clearly provided that the district attorney, who is the officer provided by the laws of the state to initiate and carry on such trials, shall be unprejudiced and unpaid except by the state, and the he shall have no private interest in such prosecution.  He is an officer of the state, provided at the expense of the state for the purpose of seeing that the criminal laws of the state are honestly and impartially administered, unprejudiced by any motives of private gain, and holding a position analogous to the of the judge who presides at the trial.  Such is the view taken of the office of the prosecuting attorney by the courts of this country as well as of England. 

See also Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N.H. 149, 151 (N.H. 1827) (noting private prosecutions often originate from private quarrels, are intended to vex and harass, and often do not result in a public benefit justifying the expense); Fletcher v. Merrimack County, 51 A.2d 271 (N.H. 1901)(noting that a privately interested prosecutor poses a threat to a defendant’s rights). 
            These same concerns come into play where a private citizen, no matter how honestly or justifiably motivated, seeks to assert a private interest by compelling a public prosecutor to initiate a criminal action.  This court should deny the writ.

2. This Court Should Deny Petitioner’s Request to Allow Video Cameras in the Courtroom.

Courtrooms are, and should be, open to the public. Nonetheless, it has been and continues to be the policy of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office to oppose all requests to videotape courtroom proceedings to which it is a party.  This case provides an excellent example of the soundness of the policy.  Courtrooms should be places where a calm, professional, and business like atmosphere should prevail.  Society demands that many of the most strongly contested disputes are resolved in court by judges, jurors, and lawyers.  Dignified and professional decorum, following the laws of the land, and the general rules of practice, help those involved and society as a whole accept the result, even if it is a result with which they might disagree. 
            The Petition for a writ of mandamus in this case, while honestly brought and the product of sincerely held beliefs, is nonetheless a political product with a political purpose.  There are many places where such political discussion can and should be held.  Those discussions should, and often do, reach as large an audience as possible.  Your Honor’s courtroom is not one of them.  Your Honor’s courtroom is for the dignified and professional resolution of legal disputes.  Cameras would hinder that goal. 

Conclusion

            In accordance with the foregoing, Respondent respectfully requests the Court to deny the Petition for a writ of mandamus and to deny Petitioner’s request to allow video cameras in the courtroom. 

______________________________
                                                            PATRICK C. DIAMOND (0175110)
Deputy County Attorney
Telephone: (612) 348-8406
FAX: (612) 348-9712