---
title: "Independent Investigations – By The Numbers"
id: "54916"
type: "post"
slug: "independent-investigations-by-the-numbers"
published_at: "2025-08-10T14:19:28+00:00"
modified_at: "2026-04-23T09:53:27+00:00"
url: "https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigations-by-the-numbers/"
markdown_url: "https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigations-by-the-numbers.md"
excerpt: "Table of Contents 3mn read Independent Investigations – By The Numbers Following the loss of our recent appeal , I wanted to know just how often the Minnesota Court of Appeals confronts situations where a trial judge conducts their own (ind…"
taxonomy_category:
  - "Craig Stevenson"
  - "Independent Judicial Investigation"
taxonomy_post_tag:
  - "independent judicial investigation"
  - "judicial impartiality and due process"
  - "judicial overreach analysis"
  - "Minnesota Court of Appeals statistics"
  - "Stevenson v. Stevenson case issues"
---
Table of Contents

3mn read

## Independent Investigations – By The Numbers

Following the loss of our recent [appeal](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/stevenson-v-stevenson-a25-0186/)
, I wanted to know just how often the Minnesota Court of Appeals confronts situations where a trial judge conducts their **own (independent) investigation** into disputed facts—a practice that runs directly against the core principle that judges decide cases based on the record, not their personal fact-gathering.

Using the Minnesota Law Library’s opinion search tool, I ran a series of targeted searches. The results speak volumes. My first search for **“independent investigation”**—covering both precedential and non-precedential opinions—produced **132 opinions**. Narrowing that to **“independent investigation” AND “forfeited”** (cases where the Court said the issue was lost for not being preserved) left **five opinions**, but **not a single one involved forfeiture of the independent investigation claim itself**.

Next, I tried the exact phrase the Court of Appeals used in *Stevenson*: **“own investigation”**. That yielded **56 opinions**. Adding **“forfeited”** dropped it to **three opinions**—and here’s the kicker: **only one of those three involved forfeiture of an “own investigation” claim—ours.** That makes *Stevenson v. Stevenson* not just unusual, but an extreme outlier:

### Search Results at a Glance

| Search Phrase | Opinions Found | Opinions Found with “Forfeited” | Forfeitures Related to the Claim |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| “independent investigation” | 132 | 5 | 0 |
| “own investigation” | 56 | 3 | 1 (Stevenson) |

Out of all the cases in Minnesota where either **“independent investigation”** or **“own investigation”** is mentioned, **ours is the only one where the Court brushed it aside as forfeited**—and it did so **even though we explicitly raised the issue in our motion to recuse, backed by a sworn declaration and detailed record citations**.

Let that sink in: the one time in Minnesota’s appellate history where this form of judicial overreach was dismissed on a technical forfeiture finding—it happened in our case, and it happened despite the fact we did everything required to preserve the issue. The following chart shows how rare this is:

![Independent Investigation Issue Forfeited](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Own-Investigation-1-1024x576.png "Independent Investigations - By The Numbers 1")**Independent Investigation Issue Forfeited at Court of Appeals**However, in **two other cases decided less than a month before ours**, the Court of Appeals ruled that a judge could not perform an independent investigation and rely on those facts in his decision. Period! (*See* [State v. Bowlby](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/state-v-bowlby-a25-0086/)
; [State v. Oxendine](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/state-v-oxendine-a24-1042/)
.) I could find no indication, in either case, that the issue was specifically preserved by any method other than the filing of the appeal.

If the system can sidestep one of the rarest and most serious forms of judicial misconduct—a judge acting as their own fact-finder **outside the record**—by declaring it “forfeited” in the face of clear preservation, then the appellate safeguards that are supposed to protect the integrity of Minnesota’s courts are paper-thin or non-existent.

When appellate courts treat a documented and preserved claim of judicial overreach as if it were never raised, they send a dangerous message: that procedural shortcuts can shield misconduct from review. Every time this happens, it erodes the public’s faith that the courts will hold their own judges to the same standards they demand of everyone else. And once that trust is gone, restoring it is far harder than preventing its loss in the first place.

For additional background and AI-assisted analysis of independent judicial investigations, visit our [Independent Investigations](https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigations/)
 page.

🤖This article was authored by Justice-Denied.org with the assistance of artificial intelligence.

🔗More on Minnesota judicial ethics and court reform: [justice-denied.org](https://justice-denied.org/)

## Related Content

- [Forfeiture That Wasn’t](https://justice-denied.org/forfeiture-that-wasnt/)
- [Independent Investigation and Selected Facts](https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigation-and-selected-facts/)
- [Independent Investigations](https://justice-denied.org/independent-investigations/)
- [Independent Judicial Investigation on Appeal](https://justice-denied.org/independent-judicial-investigation-on-appeal/)
- [Panel Shopping in Plain Sight?](https://justice-denied.org/panel-shopping-in-plain-sight/)
- [When Judges Cross the Line—And Still Keep the Case](https://justice-denied.org/when-judges-cross-the-line-and-still-keep-the-case/)
- [When the Rule Matters—and When It Doesn’t](https://justice-denied.org/when-the-rule-matters-and-when-it-doesnt/)