Catherine McEnroe Disciplinary Petition

Accessible document transcript

[Page 1]
FILE NO.

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

--------------------------------------------------
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action PETITION FOR
against CATHERINE A. McENROE, DISCIPLINARY ACTION
a Minnesota Attorney,
Registration No. 0219587.
--------------------------------------------------
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) files
this petition upon the parties’ agreement pursuant to Rules 10(a) and 12(a), Rules on
Lawyers Professional Responsibility. The Director alleges:
The above-named attorney (respondent) was admitted to practice law in
Minnesota on October 25, 1991. Respondent most recently practiced law in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Respondent has committed the following unprofessional conduct warranting
public discipline:
FIRST COUNT
1. Respondent served as an Assistant Hennepin County Attorney from April
2013 until January 6, 2023, when she went on leave. In September 2023, respondent
received a medical layoff. She held various assignments within the Hennepin County
Attorney’s Office, including the prosecution of adult felony matters.
2. On January 3, 2023, respondent began a first-degree criminal sexual
conduct jury trial involving an alleged child-victim.
3. Following jury selection and opening statements, testimony from the
alleged victim began on January 5, 2023. During her testimony, the judge called for a
routine afternoon break in the proceedings. The jury had not yet left the courtroom
October 25, 2023

[Page 2]
2
when a victim-witness advocate (advocate) with the Hennepin County Attorney’s
Office walked from the gallery, through the bar, and approached respondent at counsel
table. The advocate then wrote a note on respondent’s notepad that said “venue? HC?”
as a reminder to respondent that she needed to prove that the venue element of the
offense occurred in Hennepin County (which respondent maintains she had already
proven).
4. As the jury continued to exit the courtroom, the judge called the attorneys
up to the bench to ask about what had occurred with the advocate. The judge was
especially concerned about the note because the advocate was sitting in the gallery with
the alleged victim’s mother, whom he had allowed into the courtroom as a support
person despite her being a witness in the trial. Before the advocate approached the
respondent and wrote the note to her, the judge had seen the alleged victim’s mother
talking to the advocate in the gallery. The judge was concerned because an advocate
writing a note to the prosecutor with information from the alleged victim’s mother
would have violated the court’s sequestration order.
5. At the bench conference, respondent told the judge and defense counsel
that the advocate had written a note to her about the pronunciation of a witness’
Spanish name. While, during the trial preparation process, the advocate had advised
respondent and provided written guides indicating the correct pronunciation of names,
that was not what the note said. Respondent indicates she does not know why she
made the false statement (as it had no bearing on the case and no substantive value to
the prosecution) other than she was under extreme pressure and stress and when the
judge became upset about the advocate’s conduct, she panicked and said the first thing
that came to mind. Regardless of her reasoning, respondent’s statement to the court
was knowingly false.
6. The presiding judge directed respondent to speak with the advocate about
acceptable courtroom behavior and, because defense counsel requested it, to show the

[Page 3]
3
note to defense counsel. Respondent agreed, stating that she would get the note to
defense counsel.
7. Respondent left the courtroom with her notepad and located the advocate.
Respondent informed the advocate of the judge’s displeasure with his actions.
Respondent also informed the advocate that respondent told the judge that the note
related to the pronunciation of a name. Because respondent agreed to show defense
counsel the note, and because what she indicated to the court was on the note was not
true, respondent told the advocate to write a new note on a different page of her
notepad that correlated with the false information she told the judge and opposing
counsel. The advocate did so and respondent then showed this second note to the
defense attorney. Respondent’s conduct was dishonest and misleading.
8. After the break, the judge asked respondent whether the note had been
shown to opposing counsel and she confirmed on the record that it had. The judge also
asked respondent what the note said. Respondent again lied and said that the note was
limited to the phonetic way to pronounce an upcoming witness’ name. The trial
continued for the rest of the afternoon and into the next day, Friday, January 6, 2023.
9. As respondent continued with the trial, respondent’s supervisors became
aware of what had occurred. Respondent’s supervisors spoke with respondent during
the Friday lunch break, and she then readily admitted what happened. The supervisors
advised the court of respondent’s misconduct. Respondent then requested that she be
allowed to apologize in person on the record to the court and litigants. In open court,
respondent then detailed the false statement made to the court and her conduct in
inducing the advocate to write a new note to cover up her false statement. Respondent
then recused herself with a single witness remaining in the trial.
10. The defense made a motion for dismissal citing prosecutorial misconduct,
which the court took under advisement. Before the court issued its ruling, the
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the matter. Because double

[Page 4]
4
jeopardy had already attached at that point in the proceeding, the dismissal occurred
with prejudice.
11. Respondent’s conduct in knowingly making a false statement to the court
and opposing counsel about the contents of the initial note violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1,
and 8.4(c) and (d), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).
12. Respondent’s conduct in directing the advocate to create a second note to
cover up respondent’s dishonest conduct and providing that false note to opposing
counsel violated Rules 4.1 and 8.4(c) and 8.4(d), MRPC.
WHEREFORE, the Director respectfully prays for an order of this Court
imposing appropriate discipline, awarding costs and disbursements pursuant to the
Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and for such other, further or different
relief as may be just and proper.
_____________________________________
BINH T. TUONG1
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Attorney No. 0297434
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2400
St. Paul, MN 55101-2139
(651) 296-3952
Binh.Tuong@courts.state.mn.us
and
_____________________________________
DEANNA N. NATOLI
SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Attorney No. 0390865
Deanna.Natoli@courts.state.mn.us

1Susan M. Humiston is recused from this case and has not taken part in these
proceedings.