Justice-Denied · Editorial cartoons
Featured cartoon
The Uninvited Cut-In
Satire. Dialogue is imagined; the underlying rulings and records are linked below.
Read cartoon text
Panel 1: Craig: “Just between us.”
Panel 2: Judge Miller: “May I cut in?” Couple: “We have spousal privilege!”
Panel 3: Judge Miller: “Not in my courtroom.”
Panel 4: Three appellate judges hold cards reading “EXCEEDED” / “HIS” / “AUTHORITY.” Their desk reads “COURT OF APPEALS.”
Artwork caption: SATIRE • Imagined scenes and dialogue • A23-0077, Feb. 21, 2023
Behind the cartoon
A four-panel courtroom waltz: Judge Miller tries to cut into a married couple's private conversation, and the appellate judging panel stops the intrusion with EXCEEDED / HIS / AUTHORITY cards.
Underlying records
- Minnesota Court of Appeals special-term order, In re Stevenson, A23-0077, February 21, 20235–8, especially 7–8
- Judge Kevin M. Miller's December 6, 2022 order, Stevenson v. Stevenson, Doc. 36635–38 (especially 37–38), production recap 56
- Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 595.02, subdivision 1(a)Separate protection for spouse testimony and confidential marital communications; this cartoon concerns the latter.
Inspired by Judge Miller's December 6, 2022 order (Doc. 366, pp. 35–38, 56) and the Minnesota Court of Appeals' February 21, 2023 order in A23-0077 (pp. 6–8). The appellate court blocked compelled production of the May 27, 2019 recording because the trial court used an incorrect spousal-privilege waiver analysis. The dance-floor scene and dialogue are imagined satire; the scorecards adapt the court's conclusion that the district court exceeded its authority. The appellate order did not finally determine whether the recording was privileged; it left that question and any properly supported waiver for further proceedings. EXCEEDED / HIS / AUTHORITY is a satirical adaptation of the court's institutional wording, not a verbatim quotation. Craig and Marie use their established likenesses; Miller uses the established editorial caricature. The three appellate judges are generic fictional depictions.
More record detail
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 56-CV-20-2928, Doc. 366, December 6, 2022, pp. 35–38, 56; In re Craig Stevenson, et al., A23-0077, February 21, 2023, pp. 6–8 (district Doc. 392).
