Ignoring Contrary Evidence #2

The integrity of judicial decisions hinges on a comprehensive evaluation of all pertinent evidence. Overlooking or omitting key information can lead to outcomes that may not fully reflect the complexities of a case. In this instance, the court’s failure to address critical evidence, including communications from family members and expert evaluations, raises concerns about the thoroughness of the judicial process. Such omissions not only affect the immediate parties involved but also have broader implications for public trust in the legal system. Ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered is fundamental to upholding justice and maintaining confidence in judicial proceedings.

In his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order, Judge Miller dismissed Craig’s defamation claims against Sean. However, several key pieces of evidence were not mentioned by Judge Miller in his order, even though they were in the record and had been specifically mentioned during oral argument at the summary judgment hearing.

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order in light of the omitted evidence. The specific AI query was:

I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. Analyze Judge Miller’s order in relation to the following evidence that was in the record and was discussed during oral argument, but did not appear in his summary judgment order:

“It was only about 5 sentences in the letter. Most concerning was statement implying that you were being endangered or abused by Craig.” (Text from Frank to Marie, Plaintiffs 464, Doc. 421, Tr. 48:4-7.)

“I talked with Marie for about a half hour when I first heard about Sean’s initial letter to Dad. She said she and the girls are just fine and that Craig has been a gentle husband. I do know that he’s been overprotective at times, but I see no evidence that Marie and the girls are/were in any danger.” (Email from Ed to Frank, Plaintiffs 5060, Doc. 421, Tr. 48:18-24.)

“Its unfair for Sean to harass Dad with the innuendo’s against his own father regarding Marie.” (Email from Frank to Ed, Plaintiffs 5061, Doc. 421, Tr. 48:14-17.)

Ed and Frank are Marie’s brothers.

Determine the significance of Judge Miller’s omission of this evidence and its effect on his dismissal of Craig’s defamation claim against Sean.

Note: Craig’s daughter’s names were used in the AI response but have been substituted here with [bracketed text] to preserve their privacy.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Below is an analysis of the significance of Judge Miller’s omission of the evidence you provided and how it might have affected his dismissal of Craig’s defamation claim against Sean:

🔎 Summary of the Omitted Evidence (Frank and Ed’s Messages):

Frank to Marie (Text):
- “Most concerning was [the] statement implying that you were being endangered or abused by Craig.”
- This directly acknowledges that Sean’s letter implied abuse allegations.
Ed to Frank (Email):
- “Marie and the girls are just fine… Craig has been a gentle husband… I see no evidence that Marie and the girls are/were in any danger.”
- Ed rejects the implication of danger and abuse after speaking with Marie.
Frank to Ed (Email):
- “It’s unfair for Sean to harass Dad with the innuendoes against his own father regarding Marie.”
- Frank explicitly labels Sean’s statements as “innuendoes” against Craig.

🔎 Relevance of This Evidence to the Defamation Claim:

Judge Miller’s dismissal of the defamation claim turned entirely on his conclusion that:

None of Sean’s statements reasonably accused Craig of a crime such as domestic abuse, false imprisonment, or theft—which was necessary for Craig’s defamation per se claim.
He found that “concern” about someone’s safety was not equivalent to an accusation of past criminal conduct.

However, the omitted evidence shows:

Two independent family members (Ed and Frank) perceived Sean’s statements as carrying an implied accusation of abuse serious enough to warrant concern.
Ed’s investigation refuted the concern, strengthening that it wasn’t merely harmless speculation but a serious, accusatory implication needing verification.
Frank recognized and objected to Sean’s “innuendoes”—suggesting even Sean’s own uncle believed Sean was implying wrongdoing.

This undermines the Court’s legal conclusion that no reasonable person could read Sean’s words as accusing Craig of domestic abuse.

⚖️ Impact of the Omission on the Defamation Ruling:

1. Reasonable Reader Standard

The “reasonable reader” standard (used by the Court) asks: Would an ordinary reader interpret the statement as an accusation of a crime?
Frank and Ed’s reactions are compelling real-world examples of how ordinary readers did interpret Sean’s statements—as allegations of criminal abuse.

2. Evidence of Defamatory Meaning

Judge Miller’s order claims the “concerned” language could not imply criminal conduct.
Yet, Frank and Ed’s responses confirm the opposite: reasonable family members perceived the allegations as accusations serious enough to imply abuse or danger.

3. Proof of Reputational Harm Potential

Even if [Craig’s daughters] claimed not to believe the allegations, the fact that other family members did perceive them as serious accusations supports the potential for reputational harm.
This is crucial under Minnesota law, where the defamatory meaning must be judged by how others reasonably understand the statement—not just by the reaction of the immediate recipients.

🚨 Conclusion – Legal Significance of the Omission:

By omitting this critical evidence, Judge Miller sidestepped the strongest proof that:

Sean’s statements carried the defamatory implication of domestic abuse, satisfying the requirement of alleging a crime for defamation per se.
Reasonable readers understood Sean’s statements as serious accusations—contradicting the court’s reasoning.

Had the judge addressed Frank and Ed’s emails/texts, he might have been compelled to let a jury decide whether the statements were “reasonably capable” of carrying a criminal accusation—rather than resolving it on summary judgment.

✅ Bottom Line:

The omission weakened Craig’s case unfairly. The emails and texts showed:

A factual dispute over how Sean’s statements would be interpreted,
Making summary judgment improper under Minnesota law,
And warranting jury determination on whether Sean defamed Craig by implying abuse.

ChatGPT 4o

Important Note!

The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.

Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.

In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.

Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)

Minnesota Court of Appeals