Every Minnesotan has the right to an impartial judge — one who decides cases only on the evidence presented, not on facts gathered privately or through outside inquiry. That principle may sound self-evident, but recent cases show how easily it can be forgotten or ignored.
In Stevenson v. Stevenson, Judge Kevin Miller conducted his own independent investigation into the facts surrounding the employment background of his law clerk, James Morrison, after we learned of an undisclosed connection to opposing counsel’s father — a retired judge from the same courthouse. Judge Miller later used those self-sourced facts to deny a motion seeking his recusal. My complaint to the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards argues that this conduct violated both the Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule 2.9(C)) and the constitutional guarantee of due process.
On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed that very issue in State v. Duol — and the justices could not have been clearer.
🎙️ What the Supreme Court Said in State v. Duol
During oral argument, multiple justices questioned the State about whether impartiality is an optional safeguard or a constitutional mandate.
Justice Thissen: “What do you think the people of Minnesota would say if we issued an opinion saying you don’t have a right to an impartial fact-finder in a post-conviction hearing?”
State of Minnesota: “I think that, uh, people would have questions. I guess.”
Justice Thissen: “It kinda has to be, doesn’t it? There has to be some right to an impartial fact-finder.”
State of Minnesota: “There has to be.”(Video 33:45–34:30 mark, link)
Later, Justice Moore and Justice Gaïtas pressed the State on whether the Court should “whittle away” at its bright-line rule from State v. Dorsey (2005):
Justice Moore: “In Dorsey, we … enunciated a bright-line rule that judges may not engage in independent investigations of facts and evidence regardless of what those facts are, even if they’re uncontested facts. … Are you asking us to whittle away at Dorsey in terms of what our holding was?”
State of Minnesota: “No, … Dorsey is distinguishable based on the nature of the proceeding.”
Justice Gaïtas: “Wasn’t this the sort of equivalent of a bench trial … in that the district court was acting in the role as both fact-finder and legal decision-maker?”
State of Minnesota: “In a sense, that’s accurate.”
Justice Gaïtas: “Isn’t what happened here a little worse, actually, because nobody even had the opportunity to respond to the investigation that occurred? … In Dorsey, the judge announced her findings of her investigation in open court, and at least there was some opportunity for the parties to respond. Whereas here, the investigation occurred after the evidentiary record was closed. There was no notice … and the fruits of the investigation manifested only in the district court’s final order.”(Video 40:30–43:00 mark)
Then Justice Procaccini went a step further:
Justice Procaccini: “Okay, but what is the state’s position? Is, is independent investigation sort of per se evidence of bias? Seems to me, like that’s what our case law sort of indicates.”
State of Minnesota: “I would tend to agree with that, your honor. Yes.”
…
Justice Procaccini: “But you wouldn’t disagree if we said, there’s a presumption of bias when the record indicates the judge conducted an independent investigation.”
State of Minnesota: “I think in this case, yes, your honor.”
(Video 46:00–47:15 mark)
Finally, Chief Justice Hudson closed the loop:
Chief Justice Hudson (regarding Dorsey): “… so the judge had some knowledge, or thought she did, about it and went and investigated it and we basically said, you can’t do that. Judges can’t do that.”
(Video 47:55–48:30 mark)
By the end of the hearing, five justices — including the Chief Justice — and even the State itself agreed: an independent judicial investigation is per se bias.
📜 The Court’s Final Opinion
When the Court issued its unanimous written decision on September 3, 2025, it left no ambiguity:
“A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” (Duol, slip op. 14, quoting State v. Schlienz, 774 N.W.2d 361, 367 (Minn. 2009))
“We have recognized a bright-line rule that judges may not engage in independent investigations … When a district court judge does so, they no longer act as a fair and impartial judge.” (Id. at 12, quoting State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238, 251 (Minn. 2005))
In short: there are no exceptions. The duty of impartiality binds judges “at all stages,” and any self-initiated fact-finding permanently compromises that integrity.
⚖️ Why It Matters to Stevenson v. Stevenson
In Stevenson, Judge Miller did precisely what the justices in Duol condemned — he investigated facts outside the record, used them in a ruling, and concealed the inquiry from the parties. Justice Gaïtas’s concern in Duol — that the misconduct there was “a little worse … because nobody even had the opportunity to respond” — describes our situation exactly.
Yet the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in its July 28, 2025 opinion, treated this issue as forfeited, declining to reach the question of whether Judge Miller’s investigation violated Rule 2.9(C). The Supreme Court’s dialogue in Duol shows why that approach was wrong: impartiality is structural, not waivable.
⚠️ When Courts Excuse Bias
When the State itself concedes that independent investigation is bias, the public must ask: Why was that same conduct tolerated in our courtroom? If Minnesota’s highest court insists that “judges can’t do that,” shouldn’t lower courts and the Board on Judicial Standards hold their judges to the same rule?
The Duol decision affirms what citizens should expect from every bench in Minnesota: fairness built on transparency, not private investigation.
🕊️ A Question Minnesota Must Answer
If five of seven justices of the Minnesota Supreme Court — and the attorney for the State — agree that an independent judicial investigation constitutes per se bias, why did Judges Miller, Frisch, Slieter, and Smith treat that same conduct as permissible?
Until that question is addressed, the promise of an impartial judiciary remains broken.
🧭 References
- State v. Duol, A22-0748 (Minn. Sept. 3 2025)
- Oral-argument video: https://us-ord-1.linodeobjects.com/mjbvid-linode/A22-0748.mp4
- State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2005)
- State v. Schlienz, 774 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 2009)
- Stevenson v. Stevenson, A25-0186 (Minn. App. July 28, 2025)
This blog post was written with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
For additional background and AI-assisted analysis of judicial independent investigations, visit our Independent Investigations page.
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.