Justice-Denied.org reporting
Evidence-based reporting on judicial conduct, legal ethics, accountability, and the human cost of systems that fail to follow their own rules.
How missing communications and coordinated conduct failed to receive meaningful judicial scrutiny.
How irrelevant questions and unequal treatment reshaped my understanding of the deposition process.
How local relationships and institutional familiarity can quietly influence a courtroom’s treatment of the record.
Minnesota’s judicial watchdog promises accountability—but its complaint responses tell a different story.
How Minnesota’s ban on extra-record fact-finding was enforced in one case and avoided in another.
Two cases, the same extra-record conduct, and a constitutional rule that produced no relief.
Why a judge’s use of self-gathered facts threatens both judicial ethics and constitutional due process.
A misconduct complaint asks whether Minnesota’s judiciary will enforce its own rule against extra-record fact-finding.
How Stevenson minimized a due-process violation that Duol later described in unmistakable terms.
What Minnesota appellate decisions reveal about independent investigation, extra-record facts, and inconsistent remedies.
Why nearly identical extra-record investigations produced reversal in one case and forfeiture in another.
When appellate concern about independent investigation depends on whose case is before the court.
About the author
Justice-Denied TeamThe Justice-Denied editorial team publishes records-based reporting focused on judicial conduct, evidence, transparency, and accountability.
