Minnesota sexual assault law: What changed

Well, the president of Cornell University faced a lot of questions this week from its faculty senate while discussing the university's handling of the alleged 2024 sexual assault at a fraternity house. So the former student, if you've been following this for a while now, the former student sued the university and others in connection to the sexual assault. And this incident has really opened up a national conversation when we talk about sexual assaults And also the experiences on college campuses as well. And there are some differences in laws that we really wanted to talk about here. So in states just like New York, that's where Cornell University is. Prosecutors cannot easily bring charges against someone who is engaged in sex with someone who voluntarily became intoxicated to the point where they can't basically say yes or no. So here in Minnesota, the state closed the sexual assault loophole that we are seeing in states like New York and also at Cornell, and also in other states as well. So we wanted to bring in a woman named Amy Sweeney. She's a professor at the University of Minnesota, also a former longtime prosecutor as well with the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. Amy, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate you joining us. Thank you for having me. Of course. Let's just talk about, of course, with your history and knowledge in prosecuting cases, what has been your reaction to what we have been seeing at Cornell? Well, every so often a case will come across like this that ends up really hitting the national discussion about all of this. And I wish I could tell you that these cases are rare and that the Cornell case is sort of unique. It isn't. As I look back over the course of a long career as a prosecutor, like I said, every so often there'll be a case that comes along that gets people's attention for one reason or another. This has certainly been that kind of case. And while it's not unique, it does show us some of the themes that we've seen over the years. And as we'll be talking about some of the need to kind of change the law over time as we see things that haven't worked really to serve victims or the justice system in the past. Amy, can you talk to us about what the Minnesota law was and what it is right now? Because from my understanding, so just doing some research because personally I wasn't here, several years ago. So for maybe some of the newcomers to the state of Minnesota, is what it sounds like a state law didn't consider someone as mentally incapacitated if they were intoxicated by choice, is that right? That's exactly what it was. The law, as it existed before 2021, carved out an exception to say that there were circumstances under which someone who was intoxicated could be mentally incapacitated, but only if they became intoxicated involuntarily. So if someone, for example, had slipped something in their drink without their knowledge, as opposed to them choosing to do it, which left a big gap in the law, leaving prosecutors to charge cases with with some different options but having to show force or coercion for example or somebody who was mentally impaired those were different standards and much harder to show with somebody who had become intoxicated um voluntarily or of their own choice so then what moved the needle then was were there complaints were there you know maybe lawmakers saying something that needed to change. What was it? There were two things that happened almost kind of simultaneously. So the issue that arose for prosecutors in these cases had been well known. And prosecutors and sexual assault advocates, people in the field had been working to try to get a change in the law. And there are still some states like we now know in New York, whose law looks a lot like Minnesota's did before 2021. So that was one thing, there was already work underway to change that here. But in 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a conviction where a jury had found a defendant guilty of criminal sexual conduct in a case where a victim had been voluntarily or had become intoxicated. And the Supreme Court reversed that conviction, finding that the law didn't apply to that. So you have these two things, the one sort of groundswell that had been building anyway, and efforts to change the law at the legislature for something that was really well known at the time as a shortcoming to those in the field. And also this decision that reversed a conviction, which was sort of the thing to use the phrase you use that moved the needle back in 2021. And in reference to this case at Cornell that so many people across the country and nation are talking about at this point. The district attorney cited the law saying that the woman in this Cornell case didn't say that she became intoxicated against her will or was physically forced into sex. So I was just curious in your line of work, how did that loophole impact your cases and what you saw years ago? Well, in a very similar way, where there were cases where there was no proof of physical force or coercion, which is something very specific that the law requires. That's exactly the dilemma that a prosecutor ran into. And my own personal experience was that we didn't charge or we declined cases because there wasn't a crime that was covered in the existing law for that scenario. So the Cornell case looks very much with what little I know about it, I have to be careful. I haven't read the whole case file, but what's been publicly reported and the prosecutor's initial reason for not bringing charges was something that given that the New York law looks a lot like the Minnesota law used to look. It's not all that surprising that that was a prosecutor's conclusion. It's so interesting to hear about what was and just to think about for victims in general or survivors, you think about how hard it can be in a lot of cases to step forward in general and say something and then you know if it goes to court you also might have to see the person who is accused as well so you talk about this kind of heavy process and to some people it might seem like a no-brainer but obviously we're looking at you know other cases in in other states where the law doesn't exist why do you think that this is a law that is lacking in so many other states well i obviously um i guess the one thing that happened is perhaps they haven't had either the events that we had in Minnesota where the efforts were underway at the same time we got the change in the law. I wouldn't be surprised at all if New York changes its statute after this. It won't affect that case because it won't affect the Cornell case because it won't be retroactive. But often, particularly in areas where society's views evolve over time, it really isn't uncommon to at different points have kind of a cultural awakening or an assessment that what has been done isn't serving other broader goals of justice. You can go back, there's examples of this in the 70s and 80s with domestic violence cases and things like that. And frankly, legislatures aren't always in a hurry to act or change something unless there is a scenario that's right in front of them that's calling for that so that could be one explanation for uh for why other states might still have this on the books yeah which which makes sense not not to say like a case-by-case basis but it's like if it's not it's not clear as day in front of you you just might not see it so so that doesn't make sense Amy, I'm curious to this last question for you and i know you're you're not you know prosecuting cases anymore and you're in the classroom but do you think that Minnesota is doing what it can what it can on the states in to protect victims and survivors sure and you raised uh i mean changing the law is one step to do it but um as as you mentioned these things can be a very heavy lift for for victims survivors who come forward in the first place and i guess it's important to kind of keep this in perspective that you know you have a law that allows for charges to be brought in a case like this that's that's the first step in what can very often be a long road through the court process through a trial and of course because a case is charged that's not a guarantee that there will be a conviction at the end of all of that so you know it's one step in a long process that although this creates opportunities to charge other cases it very much remains a highly specific case-by-case scenario both for our victims and for law enforcement and prosecutors in terms of how a case might actually end up coming out even after it's charged yeah and and sadly i feel like we might still be talking about this because there are you know so many different laws in different states that this conversation could be going on for a while. Amy Sweeney, we appreciate your time. Thank you so much for joining us and just for your insight. Thank you for having me. Of course.