A Washington County man is not entitled to a new criminal trial on charges of disorderly conduct stemming from an incident in the city of Grant during the 2010 election season, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled last week, affirming a lower-court ruling.
Jeffrey L. Nielsen, 62, was initially charged with disorderly conduct, theft and two traffic offenses after he was identified as the driver of a vehicle with campaign signs on top belonging to Stephen Bohnen, now on the Grant City Council, court documents say. Later, Nielsen filed a civil suit against Keith Mueller, who had reported him, Bohnen and Washington County, alleging fraud, conspiracy and malicious prosecution.
The traffic charges were dropped before trial and the theft charge was dismissed for lack of probable cause.
After a two-day trial, a jury found Nielsen guilty on the disorderly conduct charge, and he was sentenced to 90 days in jail and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, with $700 of the fine and 89 days of the sentence suspended for a year. He also was allowed to do eight hours of community service in lieu of the one day of jail time, according to court records.
The civil case over the signs also has reached the Court of Appeals after the district court's ruling failed to go Nielsen's way. The gathering of evidence in the civil case led to Nielsen's appeal for a new trial in his criminal case.
Undisclosed e-mails were discovered between Mueller and the prosecutor in which Mueller expressed his anxiety over the stress and financial impact of the drawn-out lawsuit, and his fears over how being found guilty of fraud would affect his career as a certified investment-management analyst. The district court concluded that Mueller had reported a theft in good faith, and was therefore immune from being sued and the case against him was dismissed. The issue of Bohnen's immunity was argued before the Court of Appeals, and a ruling is expected next month.
In arguing for a new trial, Nielsen said the e-mails were suppressed evidence that should have been disclosed for defense at his criminal trial, and claimed prosecutorial misconduct and a denial of due process.
But the three-judge Appeals Court, while acknowledging the prosecutor should have turned over the e-mails, said disclosure of the statements would not have affected the case's outcome. Because of that, any misconduct by the prosecutor was harmless and there was no denial of due process as well, the panel ruled.
