Case Story: Overturning a Client’s Unjust Conviction

Domestic abuse is a scourge on society.

People have strong survival instincts. And desperate times call for desperate measures. But sometimes acting on these instincts can be misconstrued by an outside observer.

Innocent behavior can be viewed as odd or threatening.

This is especially true when race and a language barrier are involved. But misunderstandings should not be criminalized.

That’s what this case is about.

Our client tried to find shelter in the cold, people overreacted, and he ended up charged with a serious criminal offense.

Because we knew he wasn’t committing a crime when he entered the post office, we got to work on his case. It took investigation, a jury trial, and an appeal, but eventually we won and set him free.

Here’s how we did it.

The Incident

In the early hours of a cold Minnesota winter night, our homeless client needed a place to warm up. He sought refuge in a post office. The door said, “Lobby Open 24 Hours.” The lights were on, but nobody appeared to be present.

He entered the lobby. It was warm. He positioned himself next to the heat vent to warm his hands and feet.

In the back, a lone employee was sorting mail to get ready for the upcoming day of deliveries. He could hear that someone had entered the lobby. He went out to investigate. He entered the lobby through an employee-only door. He observed our client removing his jacket and squatting next to the heat vent approximately 20 feet in front of him.

He yelled at him: “You cannot be here; you must leave!”

At this point in the story, it’s important to note that our client is a refugee. Although he has lived in the U.S. for many years, he speaks broken English. He is difficult to understand and has difficulty understanding others.

Given this, our client was confused.

He was in a public lobby trying to get some respite from the cold. Someone was yelling at him, but he did not really understand why. The man seemed to appear from nowhere. He was also not wearing a postal uniform and his shouting seemed threatening.

Cold and confused, our client retrieved his pocketknife.

It was a small flip knife someone would bring on a camping trip. He did not approach the employee. He did not raise the knife at him. He did not even make eye contact. He just sat there confused, holding his knife.

“I’m calling the police!” the postal employee yelled.

And that’s exactly what he did.

He called 911 and told dispatch someone was trespassing at the post office and that the person had a knife. Our client was still confused, but at this point he understood one thing: this person was demanding that he leave.

And so  he left.

He tried to tell the employee he was leaving, but because of the language barrier, the employee did not understand him. Our client thus put his coat back on, retrieved his backpack, and simply walked out the door.

He walked approximately two blocks when a police car approached him. Officers arrested him at gunpoint. He pleaded with the officers that he was just trying to warm up, but they wouldn’t listen.

They booked him into jail, and his long legal saga began.

The Charge

When the case reached the prosecutor’s desk, she reviewed the police reports and spun the facts into something they weren’t. She claimed our client did not have permission to be in an open public lobby with signage stating it was open 24 hours a day. She also claimed that our client assaulted the postal employee by threatening him with a knife.

And the charges reflected just how seriously she was taking this misunderstanding: (1) first degree burglary while armed with a dangerous weapon; (2) first degree burglary with an assault committed during the course of the burglary; and (3) second degree assault while using a dangerous weapon.

These are all serious charges with lengthy prison sentences. As a result, the judge set bail so high it was impossible for our client to secure his release pretrial.

Instead, he would have to sit behind bars while waiting for his day in court.

So we got to work.

The Defense

While the charges were serious, the state still had to prove them. And we didn’t think they could.

Because of this, we believed the case would likely go to trial. In short, the state refused to see this case for what it really was: a homeless man trying to find some warmth on a cold winter night; confusion due to a language barrier; a misunderstanding.

We fashioned our defense for trial.

First, this was a post office lobby open to the public 24 hours a day. The general public has implicit permission to enter public spaces. Second, our client did not commit any crime while in the post office. His actions did not constitute an assault and no other crime was committed. Third, once he realized he was being told to leave, he left. Fourth, his pocketknife was not a dangerous weapon.

Now this last point is nuanced under Minnesota law.

A knife in and of itself does not necessarily qualify as a dangerous weapon. Instead, there are two ways such an item constitutes a dangerous weapon.

First, a dangerous weapon is an item designed as a weapon and capable of producing great harm. For example, a kitchen knife is not designed as a weapon; it is designed to cut food. Applied here, a small pocketknife is also not designed as a weapon; it is designed to whittle wood, cut rope, and generally be used as a tool.

Second, any item can become a dangerous weapon if it is used or intended to be used in a manner that could produce great harm. For example, a baseball bat becomes a dangerous weapon if used to beat someone. Applied here, the small pocket knife becomes a dangerous weapon only if used to stab someone—which didn’t happen here.

With these four points in mind, we were ready for trial.

The Trial

At trial, we presented the facts and our defense to the jury:

• Our homeless client was just seeking some relief from a cold winter night

• Our client was surprised and confused when a person appeared and started yelling at him.

• Because of this confusion, our client retrieved his small pocketknife.

• He never threatened the postal worker with the knife.

• He never approached the postal worker with the knife.

• He never raised the knife at the postal worker.

• He didn’t even make eye contact with the postal worker.

• Ultimately, he gathered his things and left when asked.

We felt good about the case.

After a long deliberation, the jury came back with a split verdict: guilt on one count, not guilty on two counts.

Sounds pretty good, right? Wrong.

And that’s because the count our client was found guilty of was the most serious one—first degree burglary while armed with a dangerous weapon.

This was no victory, nor was it justice.

Knowing our client didn’t belong in prison, we didn’t give up.

We filed a motion asking the judge to throw out the guilty verdict. We argued the jury got it wrong. The evidence simply did not establish guilt. In short, this was no burglary; it was survival.

Unfortunately, the judge didn’t see it our way, denied our request, and sentenced our client to 8 years in prison.

Undeterred, knowing we were right, we continued to fight.

The Appeal

Though we had lost at trial, we had one final ace up our sleeve.

Remember  when we talked about what constituted a dangerous weapon and how we didn’t think our client’s pocketknife qualified as a dangerous weapon under Minnesota law?

That turned out to be the focus of our appeal.

Because if the pocketknife was not a dangerous weapon, then our client could not be found guilty of burglary with a dangerous weapon. And if that was the case, our client would walk free.

Against this backdrop, we presented two issues on appeal: (1) was our client’s pocketknife designed as a weapon capable of producing great harm; and (2) did the pocketknife become a dangerous weapon based on the manner it was used or intended to be used?

Fast forward 18 months from the trial.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals answered these two questions, both in our client’s favor.

First, no, the pocket knife was not designed as a dangerous weapon. And second, also no, the knife was not used or intended to be used in a manner that made it a dangerous weapon.

In other words, the jury’s guilty verdict was set aside, our client’s conviction was reversed, and he was ordered released from state prison.

Justice served, finally.

The Takeaway

In the end, this story does have a happy ending. The conviction was reversed and the client was released from prison.

But at what cost?

These charges should never have been filed.

This was a homeless man trying warm up on a cold winter night. Nothing more. And for the state to try make it more, frankly, is gross.

This was confusion due to a language barrier; this was a misunderstanding; this was not criminal conduct.

Our client spent two years behind bars on a case where he was ultimately exonerated. Two lost years because the state wouldn’t listen.

Luckily, we eventually forced them to.

And we’ll do the same for you.

Like we do for all our clients.