Minneapolis prosecutor Mary Moriarty’s controversial race-based approach to justice is drawing fire from both sides of the political aisle as critics question whether her push for “equity” undermines the fundamental principle that justice should be blind.
At a Glance
- Former public defender Mary Moriarty became Minneapolis’s top prosecutor after George Floyd’s murder, focusing on reforming the justice system
- Moriarty’s office issued a policy directing prosecutors to consider “racial identity and age” when negotiating plea deals
- Legal experts warn the race-conscious policy likely violates the Constitution
- Multiple judges have rejected Moriarty’s plea deals as too lenient, and Minnesota’s Attorney General took over a murder case from her office
- Critics from both political parties have united in opposition to her handling of cases
Controversial Policies Spark Constitutional Concerns
Mary Moriarty, who rose to prominence as Minneapolis County Attorney following the murder of George Floyd, is facing mounting criticism for implementing policies that explicitly factor in a defendant’s race when determining prosecution strategies. The controversy centers around a document titled “Negotiations Policy for Cases Involving Adult Defendants,” which instructs prosecutors to consider “racial identity and age” when negotiating plea deals with defendants.
University of Minnesota law professor Jill Hasday has pointed out the fundamental legal problems with this approach: “It both says, ‘Don’t take race into account,’ presumably because of the constitutional problems with taking race into account in addition to potentially political objections, but it simultaneously says this is something you should consider. And the problem for the drafters of this policy is, once you take race into account, it doesn’t really matter what else you say. The policy is going to be struck down.”
Lenient Treatment Raising Eyebrows
Beyond the race-based prosecution guidelines, Moriarty has drawn criticism for what many perceive as excessive leniency in violent crime cases. Two separate judges have rejected plea deals from her office, deeming them inadequate for the serious offenses involved. In a particularly controversial move, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison intervened and took over a murder case from Moriarty’s office after her team offered what was widely considered an overly lenient plea deal to a juvenile defendant.
“Mary Moriarty has done one hugely positive thing. She brought back bipartisanship to Minnesota in that people on both the left and the right agree she’s doing a terrible job,” said Chris Madel, a lawyer representing Ryan Londregan.
The comment above from Chris Madel, a lawyer representing a state trooper charged with murder by Moriarty’s office, highlights the rare bipartisan agreement regarding her performance. Both Democratic Governor Tim Walz and members of Congress from both parties have expressed concerns about Moriarty’s prosecutorial decisions, particularly her decision to charge a state trooper with murder for a shooting during a traffic stop in a case where critics argue the evidence is questionable.
Inconsistent Application of Justice
Scrutiny of Moriarty’s office has intensified following allegations of inconsistent treatment in vandalism cases. Critics point to disparate handling of similar offenses, with a government employee who caused significant damage to Tesla vehicles reportedly receiving lenient treatment, while another individual faced felony charges for lesser damage to a non-Tesla vehicle. These inconsistencies have fueled concerns about selective prosecution based on ideological factors rather than equal application of the law.
According to an internal document: “While racial identity and age are not appropriate grounds for departures [from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines], proposed resolutions should consider the person charged as a whole person, including their racial identity and age.”
The internal document from Moriarty’s office attempts to thread a difficult legal needle by acknowledging constitutional limitations while still directing prosecutors to factor in race. The policy further states: “Racial disparities harm our community, lead to distrust, and have a negative impact on community safety. Prosecutors should be identifying and addressing racial disparities at decision points, as appropriate.” These guidelines, set to take effect on April 28, may attract attention from the Justice Department for further investigation due to their controversial nature.
A Test Case for Progressive Prosecution
Moriarty’s tenure represents a significant test case for the progressive prosecutor movement that has gained momentum in several major American cities. Her background as a public defender shaped her approach to criminal justice reform, focusing on addressing systemic inequalities and police misconduct. However, critics argue that her policies have prioritized ideological goals over public safety and equal treatment under the law, undermining the core principle that justice should be blind to characteristics like race.
The growing bipartisan criticism suggests that Moriarty’s approach may be testing the limits of public tolerance for progressive prosecution reforms, especially in a city still recovering from the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and subsequent unrest. As the constitutional questions surrounding her race-conscious policies come under greater scrutiny, Minneapolis continues to serve as a flashpoint in America’s ongoing debate about criminal justice reform and equal protection under the law.
