Christopher Cadem’s recent column in The Fergus Falls Daily Journal offers a spirited defense of Minnesota’s judiciary, portraying it as an impartial arbiter that wisely balances public safety and constitutional rights. He goes so far as to suggest that critiques from law enforcement—like those from outgoing Fergus Falls Chief Kile Bergren—reflect a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the system’s purpose. But what Cadem’s polished rhetoric ignores—and what our lived experience exposes—is how judicial discretion is often exercised not with constitutional precision, but with inconsistency, opacity, and outright favoritism.
Let’s be clear: no one is suggesting that bail should be used punitively or that judges should act as agents of law enforcement. But neither should the judiciary operate as a self-policing guild whose errors and biases are shielded from scrutiny. Mr. Cadem lauds local judges for “tremendous” fairness. Yet in practice, we’ve witnessed how that discretion is selectively wielded to favor the well-connected, dismiss serious misconduct, and suppress evidence that might expose procedural injustice.
Judicial Discretion or Judicial Impunity?
In our own case—Stevenson v. Stevenson—Otter Tail County Judge Kevin Miller dismissed extensive documentary evidence, failed to enforce discovery orders, and misrepresented deposition testimony in a summary judgment ruling that functioned more like a closing argument for the defense than a neutral adjudication of fact. We watched as contradictory sworn statements by the defendants were ignored, while trivial technicalities were used to exclude key evidence from our side. This wasn’t due process. It was procedural theater designed to insulate the court from appellate review.
The defense in our case also withheld forensic data in violation of discovery rules. When this was brought to Judge Miller’s attention, he took no action. Cadem’s assertion that local judges “by and large… follow the rules” does not hold up against even basic scrutiny of the public record in Otter Tail County. If judges do not enforce the law equally, if they look away when misconduct benefits one side, how can we pretend that the system is working?
The Dangerous Comfort of Legal Idealism
Cadem emphasizes that the Constitution, not emotion, should guide judicial discretion. We agree. But where is that constitutional fidelity when a judge fails to recuse himself after appointing a law clerk with undisclosed familial ties to the opposing counsel’s father—a retired Otter Tail County judge? Where is it when a court declines to address Rule 20 abuse in criminal cases but also suppresses independently verified spoliation in civil ones?
It is telling that while Cadem lectures the public about the presumption of innocence, he does not address the presumption of neutrality—an equally important cornerstone of justice. When judicial officers behave in ways that suggest partiality or protect institutional colleagues at the expense of litigants, the public’s trust is not simply “undermined by criticism,” as Cadem fears—it is eroded by firsthand experience.
A Broader Crisis
Chief Bergren’s comments—however imperfectly phrased—emerge from a pattern of frustration familiar to many who interact with the justice system, not as practitioners insulated by collegial respect, but as victims, plaintiffs, or ordinary citizens. When dangerous offenders are released on negligible bail without meaningful evaluation of the victim’s risk, the judiciary is not simply exercising discretion—it is failing in its duty of care. And when civil litigants face courts that ignore glaring inconsistencies and suppress misconduct, the system cannot hide behind abstract ideals.
Cadem’s call to respect judicial independence is valid. But independence is not a synonym for unaccountability. Nor should it become a shield against uncomfortable truths. The fact that judicial errors often go uncorrected—not because they didn’t occur, but because appellate courts give excessive deference to trial court discretion—only intensifies public frustration.
A System in Need of More Than Praise
If the courts in Otter Tail County and elsewhere are as fair and faithful as Mr. Cadem claims, then transparency, accountability, and rigorous oversight should pose no threat. But if instead we are dealing with a system that has grown too comfortable in its own immunity—too quick to dismiss the real-world consequences of its rulings—then it is not those calling for reform who misunderstand democracy.
It is those defending the status quo.
📌 Read more about how Otter Tail County Judge Kevin Miller viewed fairness and impartiality in Stevenson v. Stevenson:
- AI Judicial Bias Analysis of Judge Miller’s Orders
- Cherry-Picking Facts at Summary Judgment
- Contradictory Statements Under Oath
- Ellipses and Omitted Facts
- Top Egregious Actions by Judge Miller Against Plaintiffs
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.