•••
From the account in this paper ("Rape case dismissed after lie to judge," Jan. 10), Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty did not have to dismiss the rape case involving Marco Tulio Rivera Enamorado.
The article states that the prosecutor, Catherine McEnroe, got an entirely appropriate note from a staff member during the trial. For some unknown reason, when questioned about the note, the prosecutor lied about the note's contents to the judge. That lie, while a gross breach of duty, does not appear to have had any impact on the right of the defendant to a fair trial. Situations like this are routinely handled outside of the jury's presence. McEnroe's misconduct was an alarming breach of her duty to be truthful to the court. Certainly, she should be disciplined for that misconduct. But in the absence of any substantial and irreversible harm to the defendant's rights, Moriarty's decision to dismiss the case was flat-out overkill.
The proper thing to have done would have been for Moriarty to ask Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill to decide if the trial could continue after hearing argument from both sides. Moriarty's statement that dismissal was required for "transparency" is erroneous. "Transparency" could have been achieved by publicly disciplining McEnroe without dismissing this serious case with a 14-year-old victim.
As a prosecutor in the Hennepin County Attorney's Office for 32 years, I handled hundreds of sexual assault cases. I believe the defendant's responsibility for this crime and the prosecutor's responsibility for misconduct are separate issues that should have been handled separately.
As the Hennepin County attorney, Moriarty has a duty to the public to be a zealous prosecutor. Her decision to dismiss this case demonstrates an instinct that is more closely aligned to that of a defense attorney, not of a prosecutor.
James Appleby, Roseville