Vigorously Defending Solicitation of Juveniles Allegations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area Under Minnesota Statute § 609.494
An accusation of an adult soliciting or conspiring with a minor to commit a crime or delinquent act, or acting as an accomplice to a minor in such an offense, is an extremely serious matter under Minnesota Statute § 609.494. This law is designed to protect juveniles from adult influence that leads them into criminal behavior, and a conviction carries substantial penalties, including potential felony charges, imprisonment, and significant fines. The severity of the solicitation charge mirrors the gravity of the crime or delinquent act the minor was encouraged or aided to commit. For any adult facing these allegations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County, a thorough understanding of this statute and its far-reaching implications is absolutely critical.
The core of Minnesota Statute § 609.494 is the prohibition against adults leveraging their influence to involve minors in illegal activities. The prosecution must prove not only that the accused is an adult and the other party a minor, but also that there was an act of solicitation (commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade), conspiracy, or accomplice liability aimed at the commission of a specific crime or delinquent act. Given the severe potential for consecutive sentencing and the lasting stigma of such a conviction, particularly in Hennepin and Ramsey County courts, mounting an aggressive and well-informed defense is paramount.
Minnesota Statute § 609.494: The Legal Framework for Solicitation of Juveniles Charges
Minnesota state law defines and penalizes adults who solicit, conspire with, or act as accomplices to minors in committing crimes or delinquent acts under Minnesota Statute § 609.494. This statute outlines the prohibited conduct, the sentencing structure based on the intended offense, and allows for multiple and consecutive sentences.
609.494 SOLICITATION OF JUVENILES.
Subdivision 1.Crime. A person is guilty of a crime and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2 if the person is an adult and solicits or conspires with a minor to commit a crime or delinquent act or is an accomplice to a minor in the commission of a crime or delinquent act.
Subd. 2.Sentence. (a) A person who violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor if the intended criminal act is a misdemeanor or would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the intended criminal act is a gross misdemeanor or would be a gross misdemeanor if committed by an adult.
(b) A person who violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a felony if the intended criminal act is a felony or would be a felony if committed by an adult, and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one-half the statutory maximum term for the intended criminal act or to payment of a fine of not more than one-half the maximum fine for the intended criminal act, or both.
Subd. 3.Multiple sentences. Notwithstanding section 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction under this section is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.
Subd. 4.Consecutive sentences. Notwithstanding any provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, the court may provide that a sentence imposed for a violation of this section shall run consecutively to any sentence imposed for the intended criminal act. A decision by the court to impose consecutive sentences under this subdivision is not a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.
Subd. 5.Definition. “Solicit” means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person.
Proving Solicitation of a Juvenile in Hennepin and Ramsey County Courts: Essential Legal Elements
To secure a conviction for Solicitation of Juveniles under Minnesota Statute § 609.494, the prosecution in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or any other Minnesota jurisdiction must prove each essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure to establish any single element will prevent a lawful conviction. These elements involve the status of the accused and the person involved, the nature of the interaction, and the connection to a criminal act or delinquent act.
- The Accused is an Adult: The prosecution must first establish that the person charged under this statute is an “adult.” While the statute itself doesn’t define “adult,” in the context of Minnesota law, this generally refers to an individual who is 18 years of age or older at the time of the alleged offense. Proof of age, typically through official records, would be required. If the accused is also a minor, this specific statute would not apply, though other charges might. This is a foundational element for any case brought in Minneapolis or St. Paul.
- Involvement of a Minor: The state must prove that the other party involved in the solicitation, conspiracy, or accomplice situation was a “minor.” In Minnesota, a minor is generally a person under the age of 18. The age of the juvenile at the time of the alleged offense is a critical factual element. Evidence such as birth certificates or school records might be used to establish the individual’s status as a minor.
- Act of Solicitation, Conspiracy, or Accomplice Liability: The prosecution must prove one of three types of conduct by the adult:
- Solicits: As defined in Subdivision 5, this means “commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person” (the minor) to commit a crime or delinquent act. This requires evidence of direct communication or actions aimed at inducing the minor.
- Conspires With: This involves the adult entering into an agreement with the minor to commit a crime or delinquent act. Conspiracy typically requires proof of an agreement and, in many contexts, an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
- Is an Accomplice To: This means the adult intentionally aided, advised, hired, counseled, or conspired with or otherwise procured the minor to commit the crime or delinquent act. Accomplice liability requires that the adult played an intentional role in furthering the commission of the offense by the minor. This could involve providing tools, transportation, or encouragement for the crime in a Hennepin County scenario.
- To Commit a Crime or Delinquent Act: The adult’s solicitation, conspiracy, or accomplice behavior must be directed towards the minor committing a “crime or delinquent act.” A “crime” refers to an offense that would be a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony if committed by an adult. A “delinquent act” is an act committed by a juvenile that would be a crime if committed by an adult. The prosecution must specify the particular crime or delinquent act that was the object of the adult’s actions. The nature of this intended act is crucial as it dictates the severity level of the § 609.494 charge itself. For instance, soliciting a minor in Ramsey County to shoplift (misdemeanor) is treated differently than soliciting them to commit burglary (felony).
Understanding the Stakes: Penalties for Soliciting a Juvenile in Minnesota
A conviction for an adult soliciting, conspiring with, or acting as an accomplice to a minor in the commission of a crime or delinquent act under Minnesota Statute § 609.494 carries significant penalties. These penalties are tiered, directly reflecting the seriousness of the underlying crime or delinquent act the minor was involved in. Individuals convicted in the Twin Cities face not only imprisonment and fines for this offense but also the possibility of these sentences running consecutively to other related charges.
If the Intended Act is a Misdemeanor (or would be if committed by an adult)
If the crime or delinquent act the minor was solicited, conspired with, or aided to commit is a misdemeanor (or would be a misdemeanor if the minor were an adult), then the adult violating § 609.494 is guilty of a misdemeanor. In Minnesota, a misdemeanor is punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
If the Intended Act is a Gross Misdemeanor (or would be if committed by an adult)
If the underlying offense involving the minor is a gross misdemeanor (or would be if the minor were an adult), the adult violator is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. This is punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $3,000, or both. This could apply if an adult in Hennepin County encourages a minor to engage in conduct like higher-level theft or certain assault offenses.
If the Intended Act is a Felony (or would be if committed by an adult)
When the crime or delinquent act intended for or committed by the minor is a felony (or would be a felony if committed by an adult), the adult who violates § 609.494 is guilty of a felony. The potential sentence for this solicitation felony is imprisonment for not more than one-half the statutory maximum term for the intended underlying felony or payment of a fine of not more than one-half the maximum fine for that intended felony, or both. For example, if an adult in Ramsey County solicits a minor to participate in a robbery that carries a 10-year maximum, the adult could face up to 5 years for the solicitation charge alone.
Multiple Sentences Permitted (Subd. 3)
Subdivision 3 explicitly states that a prosecution or conviction under § 609.494 does not prevent conviction or punishment for any other crime the defendant committed as part of the same conduct. This means an adult could be charged and sentenced for the solicitation itself, and also for the underlying crime if they participated in it directly (e.g., as a co-conspirator or direct participant in a burglary alongside the minor).
Consecutive Sentences Possible (Subd. 4)
Critically, Subdivision 4 allows the court to order that a sentence for violating § 609.494 run consecutively to any sentence imposed for the intended criminal act. This means the sentence for soliciting the juvenile would only begin after the sentence for the main crime (if also convicted of that) is completed. This provision underscores the legislature’s intent to impose additional punishment for involving a minor and explicitly states this is not a departure from sentencing guidelines, making such an order more likely in serious cases across the Twin Cities.
How Charges of Soliciting Juveniles Can Arise: Illustrative Examples in the Metro Area
Minnesota Statute § 609.494 addresses situations where adults exploit their position or influence to involve minors in unlawful activities. These scenarios can vary widely, from encouraging minor delinquency to orchestrating serious crimes with juvenile participation. Understanding how these charges might manifest in real-world situations in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding communities helps clarify the scope of the law.
The essence of the offense is the adult’s initiative in leading a minor toward criminal conduct, whether through direct persuasion, planning together, or actively assisting. Prosecutors in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and other metro jurisdictions will carefully examine the adult’s role, the age of the minor, and the nature of the intended or committed crime or delinquent act.
Example: Adult Encouraging Minors in Minneapolis to Shoplift
An adult in a Minneapolis neighborhood frequently encourages a group of local teenagers (minors) to shoplift items like snacks, drinks, or small electronics from nearby convenience stores, promising to buy the stolen goods from them at a low price. The adult commands them on what to take and when. This act of commanding and attempting to persuade minors to commit misdemeanor theft would expose the adult to misdemeanor charges under Minn. Stat. § 609.494 for each instance of solicitation.
Example: Adult Conspiring with a Teenager in St. Paul for Vandalism
An adult in St. Paul holds a grudge against a former employer and conspires with a 16-year-old to vandalize the business property. They plan the act together, with the adult providing spray paint and agreeing on a time for the teenager to carry out the graffiti (which would be a gross misdemeanor level of property damage). Even if the adult isn’t present during the vandalism, their conspiracy with the minor to commit the delinquent act would lead to a gross misdemeanor charge under § 609.494.
Example: Adult Acting as Accomplice to a Minor in an Anoka County Burglary
An adult in Anoka County plans a residential burglary (a felony) and enlists a 17-year-old to help. The adult drives the minor to the location, provides tools to break in, and instructs the minor on what to steal, while acting as a lookout. The adult is an accomplice to the minor in the commission of the felony. This would result in the adult facing a felony charge under § 609.494, with a potential sentence of up to half the maximum for the burglary itself, in addition to potential charges for burglary.
Example: Adult Persuading a Minor in Dakota County to Sell Drugs
An adult drug dealer in Dakota County attempts to persuade a 15-year-old, who attends a local high school, to sell small amounts of marijuana (which, depending on quantity and circumstances, could be a delinquent act that would be a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor if committed by an adult, or even a felony) to their classmates. The adult offers the minor a cut of the profits. This “attempting to persuade” the minor to commit a crime/delinquent act related to drug distribution would subject the adult to charges under § 609.494, with the severity depending on the level of the intended drug offense.
Building a Strong Defense Against Allegations of Soliciting Juveniles in Minneapolis
Accusations of an adult soliciting, conspiring with, or acting as an accomplice to a minor in criminal activity under Minnesota Statute § 609.494 are exceptionally damaging and carry severe penalties. A robust defense is critical for any adult facing these charges in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or the surrounding counties of Dakota, Anoka, and Washington. The prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, including the adult status of the accused, the minor status of the other party, the specific act of solicitation/conspiracy/accomplice liability, and the intent for a crime or delinquent act.
A comprehensive defense strategy involves a meticulous review of all evidence, including witness statements (especially from the minor, if they are cooperating with authorities), communications between the parties, and any evidence related to the alleged underlying crime. Challenging the state’s narrative, scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses, and asserting all available legal defenses under Minnesota law are paramount. A confident approach is necessary to counter the inherent prejudice these charges can evoke.
Challenging the “Adult” Status of the Accused or “Minor” Status of the Other Party
While often straightforward, the age and legal status of the individuals involved are foundational elements that must be proven by the prosecution.
- Disputing Accused’s Adult Status: In rare cases, if the accused is very close to the age of 18, there might be a factual dispute or error regarding their exact age at the time of the offense. If the accused was, in fact, also a minor, § 609.494 would not apply.
- Questioning the “Minor’s” Age or Maturity: While age is typically a matter of record, if there’s a genuine question about the alleged minor’s age bringing them close to 18, this could be explored. More complex might be arguments (though not a direct statutory defense to this specific element if age is proven) about the minor’s unusual sophistication or instigation, which might play into broader defense themes about who was influencing whom, though the statute primarily focuses on the adult’s actions.
Contesting the Act of “Solicitation,” “Conspiracy,” or “Accomplice Liability”
The specific conduct alleged by the prosecution – whether it’s solicitation, conspiracy, or acting as an accomplice – must be rigorously examined.
- No Actual Solicitation: The defense can argue that the adult’s words or actions did not meet the definition of “solicit” (commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade). Casual conversation, expressions of frustration, or even boasting about criminal acts in the presence of a minor, without a direct attempt to get that minor to commit a crime, may not suffice. For example, an adult merely complaining about needing money in front of a minor in Minneapolis is not solicitation for theft.
- Lack of Agreement for Conspiracy: To prove conspiracy, the state must show an agreement between the adult and the minor to commit a crime. If there was no meeting of the minds or mutual understanding to pursue a criminal objective, a conspiracy charge cannot stand. Parallel conduct or mere association is not enough.
- No Intentional Aid for Accomplice Liability: For accomplice liability, the adult must have intentionally aided, advised, or otherwise procured the minor to commit the crime. If the adult’s actions were unintentional, or if they unknowingly assisted, or if their involvement did not actually further the minor’s commission of the crime, this element may fail. For instance, lending a minor a common tool without knowing their criminal intent in a St. Paul scenario might not be accomplice liability.
No Intent for a “Crime or Delinquent Act”
The prosecution must prove that the adult’s actions were aimed at the minor committing a specific “crime or delinquent act.”
- Act Solicited Was Not Criminal: The defense could argue that the conduct the adult encouraged the minor to engage in was not actually illegal, or was so trivial it wouldn’t constitute a crime or recognized delinquent act. For example, encouraging a minor to perform a harmless prank that doesn’t amount to property damage or disorderly conduct.
- Lack of Criminal Intent by the Adult: Even if the minor engaged in a delinquent act, if the adult did not intend for that outcome or did not solicit/conspire/aid with criminal intent, the charge against the adult may fail. For example, if an adult in Anoka County asked a minor to retrieve property genuinely believed to be the adult’s, which turned out to belong to someone else, the adult might lack the intent for theft.
- Vagueness of Purpose: If the adult’s alleged encouragement was vague and not directed towards a specific, identifiable crime or delinquent act, it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove this element. General encouragement to “be rebellious” is different from soliciting a specific act of vandalism.
Challenging the Credibility and Reliability of the Minor’s Testimony
In many solicitation of juveniles cases, the testimony of the minor involved can be central to the prosecution’s case. However, minors’ testimony can sometimes be unreliable or influenced by various factors.
- Motive to Lie or Exaggerate: The defense may explore whether the minor has a motive to lie, exaggerate, or shift blame onto the adult, perhaps to minimize their own culpability for the delinquent act, to gain favor with authorities, or due to pressure from parents or peers.
- Suggestibility and Influence: Minors can be more suggestible than adults. The defense might investigate whether the minor’s account has been influenced by leading questions from investigators, discussions with other individuals, or a desire to please authority figures. This is particularly relevant if the minor’s statements have changed over time.
- Inconsistencies in Statements: Any inconsistencies in the minor’s statements to police, in court, or to others should be highlighted to challenge their credibility and reliability. Thorough cross-examination is key when a minor testifies in a Dakota County or Washington County courtroom.
Answering Your Questions About Minnesota’s Law on Soliciting Juveniles
Accusations of an adult involving a minor in criminal activity are taken very seriously under Minnesota law. Here are answers to common questions regarding Minnesota Statute § 609.494.
What is the main purpose of Minnesota Statute § 609.494?
This law aims to protect minors by criminalizing the actions of adults who solicit, conspire with, or act as accomplices to minors in the commission of crimes or delinquent acts. It recognizes the vulnerability of juveniles to adult influence.
Who is considered an “adult” and a “minor” under this Minneapolis law?
Generally, for this Minneapolis and statewide law, an “adult” is someone 18 years or older, and a “minor” is someone under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.
What does “solicit” mean in the context of this St. Paul statute?
As defined in the statute, “solicit” means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person (in this case, a minor) to commit a crime or delinquent act. It’s an active effort by the adult.
Are the penalties different if the crime the minor was involved in was a felony versus a misdemeanor in Hennepin County?
Yes, absolutely. If the intended act was a misdemeanor, the adult’s solicitation charge is a misdemeanor. If it was a gross misdemeanor, the charge is a gross misdemeanor. If the intended act was a felony, the adult’s solicitation charge is a felony, with potential penalties up to half the maximum for that underlying felony. This applies in Hennepin County and all of Minnesota.
Can an adult be charged even if the minor didn’t actually go through with the crime in Ramsey County?
Yes. The crime of solicitation is complete when the adult commands, entreats, or attempts to persuade the minor to commit the crime/delinquent act, regardless of whether the minor successfully completes it. The same applies to conspiracy; it often doesn’t require the crime to be completed.
What if the adult was also involved in committing the main crime with the minor in Dakota County?
Subdivision 3 of the statute allows for multiple sentences. This means an adult in Dakota County could be convicted and punished for violating § 609.494 (soliciting the juvenile) and also convicted and punished for the underlying crime itself (e.g., burglary, theft) if they participated in it.
Can the sentences for soliciting a juvenile and the main crime run at the same time in Anoka County?
Subdivision 4 specifically allows the court in Anoka County (or elsewhere) to order that the sentence for soliciting a juvenile run consecutively (one after the other) to any sentence for the intended criminal act. This can significantly increase total prison time.
What’s the difference between “soliciting” and “conspiring with” a minor?
“Soliciting” is more of a one-way action: the adult trying to get the minor to act. “Conspiring with” implies a two-way agreement or plan between the adult and the minor to commit the crime or delinquent act. Both are prohibited under this statute.
What if the adult didn’t realize the person they were talking to was a minor in Washington County?
While a mistake of age might be a complex factual issue, the statute focuses on the actual status of the parties. If the other person was a minor, the adult could still be charged. However, the reasonableness of any claimed mistake of age might be a factor considered by the court or prosecutor, or in defense arguments about intent, in a Washington County case.
Is it a defense if the minor seemed very mature or was the one who suggested the crime?
The statute is aimed at protecting minors from adult exploitation. Even if a minor seems mature or instigates discussion, if an adult then solicits, conspires, or acts as an accomplice to that minor in committing a crime, the adult can still be charged. The focus is on the adult’s actions and responsibility.
What kind of evidence is used to prove these charges in Minneapolis?
Evidence can include testimony from the minor, any witnesses to the solicitation or conspiracy, text messages, social media communications between the adult and minor, and evidence of the underlying crime or delinquent act itself.
Can a parent be charged with soliciting their own child under this St. Paul law?
Yes. The relationship between the adult and minor does not exempt the adult from this law. A parent, guardian, or any other adult can be charged if they solicit, conspire with, or aid their child or any minor in committing a crime.
What if the “delinquent act” wouldn’t be a crime for an adult (e.g., underage drinking)?
The statute refers to “a crime or delinquent act.” If the act is something that is only an offense because the person is a minor (a status offense like curfew violation or underage consumption, which aren’t “crimes” if done by an adult), it’s less clear if this specific statute is primarily aimed at that, as it often ties penalties to what the act would be if committed by an adult. Typically, “delinquent act” in this context means an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult. Soliciting a minor to commit a purely status offense might be handled under different laws.
If the adult is convicted, will it specify that a minor was involved?
Yes, a conviction under Minnesota Statute § 609.494, “Solicitation of Juveniles,” by its very nature indicates that the offense involved a minor. This can carry a particularly negative stigma.
What should I do if I’m accused of soliciting a juvenile in the Twin Cities?
If you are accused of violating this statute in the Twin Cities, it is crucial to exercise your right to remain silent and immediately contact a criminal defense attorney. These are serious charges, and experienced legal representation is essential.
Long-Term Impact: The Enduring Consequences of a Solicitation of Juveniles Conviction
A conviction for an adult soliciting, conspiring with, or acting as an accomplice to a minor in the commission of a crime or delinquent act under Minnesota Statute § 609.494 carries severe and long-lasting repercussions. These consequences extend well beyond any court-imposed sentence of jail time or fines and can profoundly affect an individual’s life, particularly if the conviction is a felony. For those in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, these impacts can be especially challenging.
Creation of a Damaging and Permanent Criminal Record
Any conviction under this statute—misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony—becomes a permanent part of an individual’s criminal record. This record is accessible through background checks used by employers, landlords, educational institutions, and volunteer organizations. A conviction for involving a minor in criminal activity is viewed with extreme prejudice and can create insurmountable barriers to many opportunities throughout Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Minnesota. The nature of the offense often leads to immediate disqualification for roles involving trust or contact with children.
Severe Obstacles to Employment and Professional Licensing
Finding and maintaining employment becomes extraordinarily difficult with a conviction for soliciting juveniles. Employers are highly reluctant to hire individuals with such a record, particularly for positions in education, childcare, healthcare, social work, or any field involving interaction with minors or vulnerable populations. Professional licenses (e.g., teaching, nursing, counseling) are likely to be denied, suspended, or revoked. This can effectively end careers and drastically limit future earning potential for residents in Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
Significant Social Stigma and Reputational Harm
The social stigma attached to a conviction for exploiting or corrupting a minor is immense and can be personally devastating. It can lead to ostracization from communities, damage family relationships, and result in the loss of friendships. The reputation of someone convicted of this offense is often irreparably harmed, making it difficult to rebuild trust and reintegrate into social circles. This is a type of offense that carries a heavy societal judgment, which can be particularly acute in close-knit communities within the greater Twin Cities area.
Restrictions on Living Arrangements and Volunteer Activities
A conviction for soliciting a juvenile, especially if the underlying intended act was serious or of a sexual nature (though this statute is general, other statutes might also apply in such cases), can lead to restrictions on where an individual can live, particularly concerning proximity to schools, parks, or daycare centers. Furthermore, opportunities to volunteer in schools, youth organizations, or community groups will almost certainly be eliminated. This can lead to a sense of isolation and an inability to participate in community life in Anoka, Dakota, or Washington counties. Loss of firearm rights is also a standard consequence of any felony conviction.
The Critical Role of Experienced Legal Counsel in Defending Solicitation of Juveniles Allegations in the Twin Cities
When an adult faces grave accusations under Minnesota Statute § 609.494 for soliciting, conspiring with, or being an accomplice to a minor in a crime or delinquent act, the necessity of securing experienced and dedicated legal representation cannot be overstated. These are among the most serious types of charges due to the involvement of a minor, and the potential for severe penalties, including felony convictions and consecutive sentencing, demands a sophisticated and aggressive defense strategy, particularly within the rigorous court systems of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding Twin Cities region.
Navigating Complex Statutory Definitions and Proving Intent
Minnesota’s law on soliciting juveniles involves specific legal terms such as “solicit,” “conspires with,” and “accomplice,” each with distinct elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. An attorney thoroughly versed in Minnesota criminal statutes can meticulously analyze the charges, scrutinize the evidence for failures to meet these definitions, and challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of events. Proving the adult’s specific intent to involve the minor in a particular crime or delinquent act is often a key battleground. An attorney can effectively argue when the evidence falls short of demonstrating the requisite criminal intent, a critical aspect in Hennepin and Ramsey County courts.
Developing Tailored Defense Strategies for Sensitive Accusations
Cases involving the alleged exploitation of minors are inherently sensitive and can evoke strong emotions. A skilled defense attorney understands how to navigate this challenging environment by focusing on the facts and the law, rather than emotion. They will conduct a comprehensive investigation, which may include interviewing the minor (if permissible and appropriate, often through formal channels), examining communications, and identifying any inconsistencies or motivations that might affect the minor’s credibility or the overall narrative presented by the prosecution in a Dakota or Anoka County case. The strategy must be tailored to the specific allegations, whether it’s arguing that no solicitation occurred, that the adult was not an accomplice, or that there was no intent for a genuine crime.
Rigorously Challenging the Minor’s Testimony and Other Evidence
Often, the primary evidence in a solicitation of juveniles case is the testimony of the minor involved. While minors can be truthful witnesses, their accounts can also be influenced by various factors, including suggestibility, pressure from adults, or a misunderstanding of events. An experienced defense attorney is skilled in the delicate but necessary process of cross-examining minor witnesses in a manner that is respectful yet effective in revealing inconsistencies, biases, or unreliability. Additionally, all other evidence, such as alleged corroborating statements or circumstantial evidence, will be thoroughly scrutinized for its admissibility and probative value in Washington County or other Twin Cities courts.
Protecting Constitutional Rights and Striving for the Best Possible Resolution
Every individual accused of a crime, no matter how serious the allegation, is protected by fundamental constitutional rights. These include the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to a fair trial. A dedicated criminal defense attorney acts as a crucial safeguard for these rights throughout the legal process. Given the severe potential penalties under § 609.494, including lengthy imprisonment (especially with consecutive sentencing) and lifelong stigma, the attorney’s role is to pursue every available legal avenue to achieve the best possible outcome. This may involve seeking a dismissal of charges, negotiating for a plea to a lesser offense if appropriate, or vigorously defending the client at trial to secure an acquittal.