In a troubling opinion issued June 30, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a Mille Lacs County judge for dismissing criminal charges based on improper legal standards, speculation, and what the appellate court called “a collateral attack” on a harassment restraining order (HRO). The judge even conducted their own independent research—outside of the record—to reach conclusions favorable to the defendant.
But here’s the kicker: the same judge will now get the case back.
Despite documenting a textbook case of judicial overreach and bias, the Court of Appeals declined to reassign the matter, stating in a footnote:
“We decline to address reassignment of the case to a different district court judge because neither party requested we do so.”
This is what passes for judicial accountability in Minnesota.
A Judge Becomes an Advocate
The facts in State v. Bowlby (A25-0086) are simple: the defendant was charged with violating an HRO by entering a restricted area. The judge dismissed the charges, insisting the defendant didn’t intend to harass anyone, even though no such intent is required by law. The judge then took things further—far further.
According to the Court of Appeals, the judge:
- Conducted their own investigation to calculate distances between the defendant’s home and the protected area;
- Relied on facts not introduced by either party;
- Made legal arguments on behalf of the defendant that the defendant himself never raised;
- And reinterpreted the HRO in ways that undermined its clear terms.
The appellate court was blunt: this was not judicial impartiality. It was a judge stepping into the shoes of defense counsel.
So Why Wasn’t the Judge Removed?
Despite this deeply troubling conduct, the Court of Appeals refused to even consider reassignment. Why? Because neither party had asked for it.
Legally, that’s a defensible position. Procedurally, appellate courts often wait for a party to request reassignment before acting. But morally? Institutionally? It’s an abdication.
The court had every reason—and every right—to protect the integrity of the remand by assigning the case to a new judge. The record was already clear: this judge had not been impartial. The Court cited State v. Dorsey and State v. Schlienz—cases that establish when judges step outside their neutral role, the damage is done.
Yet instead of protecting fairness, the appellate court defaulted to bureaucracy.
Judicial Misconduct Without Consequence
This ruling reveals something deeply unsettling about Minnesota’s judiciary: a judge can conduct independent research, inject their own arguments, and effectively rewrite the facts—and still get a second chance with the same case.
Let that sink in.
The message to trial judges is clear: so long as no one files the right procedural motion, even documented misconduct might not matter.
The message to litigants is even clearer: even when you prove a judge was biased, you may still be stuck with them.
Justice Denied by Footnote
Footnote 1 in State v. Bowlby may seem minor. But in that short, bureaucratic sentence lies a broader truth about judicial accountability in Minnesota. It doesn’t matter how far off track a judge goes—unless someone uses the exact right mechanism at the exact right time, the system is not designed to correct itself.
At Justice-Denied.org, we believe justice should not hinge on who files what motion. When the evidence of judicial bias is on the record, the court should act—proactively, transparently, and decisively.
Instead, a deeply compromised trial judge will now decide what happens next in State v. Bowlby.
Minnesota deserves better.
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.