Records Pertaining to Victim Identity Confidential

Protecting Minor Victim Privacy in Minneapolis-St. Paul Sex Offense Cases: Understanding Minnesota Statute § 609.3471

In the sensitive context of criminal proceedings involving sexual offenses and human trafficking, Minnesota law provides crucial protections for the privacy of minor victims. Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 specifically mandates the confidentiality of records that identify these young victims, shielding them from public disclosure except under very limited circumstances. This law is a cornerstone of efforts to protect vulnerable children navigating the justice system in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and throughout the Twin Cities region. Understanding its provisions is vital for victims, their families, legal professionals, and the public.

The core principle of § 609.3471 is to prevent the further traumatization of minor victims that can result from public identification. By making identifying information inaccessible to the public without a court order, the statute aims to encourage reporting and facilitate cooperation with investigations and prosecutions. However, the law also recognizes the importance of transparency in the justice system by ensuring that other data, including the identity of the defendant, remains publicly accessible. Successfully balancing these interests—child protection, the pursuit of justice, and public access to information—is a key objective of this statute and its application in Minnesota courts.

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471: The Law Mandating Confidentiality of Minor Victim Identities

Minnesota law establishes a specific mandate for keeping confidential any records that could identify a minor victim in certain criminal cases, primarily those involving sexual offenses or human trafficking. This important protection is codified under Minnesota Statute § 609.3471, which dictates the accessibility of such sensitive information.

609.3471 RECORDS PERTAINING TO VICTIM IDENTITY CONFIDENTIAL.

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no data contained in records or reports relating to petitions, complaints, or indictments issued pursuant to section 609.322, 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345, 609.3453, or 609.3458, which specifically identifies a victim who is a minor shall be accessible to the public, except by order of the court. Nothing in this section authorizes denial of access to any other data contained in the records or reports, including the identity of the defendant.

History: 1984 c 573 s 9; 1985 c 119 s 1; 1986 c 351 s 13; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 73; 1987 c 331 s 9; 1992 c 571 art 1 s 26; 1993 c 13 art 1 s 49; 2005 c 136 art 4 s 7; 2015 c 65 art 6 s 15; 1Sp2021 c 11 art 4 s 31

Core Mandates of § 609.3471: Shielding Minor Victim Identities in Minnesota Court Records

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 serves a critical protective function within the state’s justice system. It does not define a crime but rather establishes strict rules regarding the confidentiality of information that could identify minor victims in serious criminal cases, including various degrees of criminal sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and sexual extortion. This statute is paramount in safeguarding vulnerable children from further harm and ensuring their privacy during and after legal proceedings in courts across Minnesota, including those in Hennepin County and Ramsey County. The law carefully balances the need for victim protection with the principles of public access to court information.

• Scope of Confidentiality: The statute mandates that no data contained in records or reports specifically identifying a victim who is a minor shall be accessible to the public. This protection applies to records related to petitions, complaints, or indictments issued under a list of specified Minnesota statutes: § 609.322 (Solicitation, Inducement, and Promotion of Prostitution; Sex Trafficking), §§ 609.342-609.345 (various degrees of Criminal Sexual Conduct), § 609.3453 (Criminal Sexual Predatory Conduct), and § 609.3458 (Sexual Extortion). This means names, addresses, and any other information that would directly reveal the identity of a child victim in these cases are to be kept from public view in court filings and reports.
• Mechanism for Access: While the default is confidentiality, the statute provides a narrow exception: such identifying information shall be accessible to the public… except by order of the court. This means that for anyone, including media or other interested parties, to gain access to information specifically identifying a minor victim, they must petition the court and obtain a judicial order permitting such access. The court would then weigh the reasons for the request against the strong public policy of protecting the minor victim’s privacy and well-being.
• Public Access to Other Data: Crucially, the statute also clarifies that nothing in this section authorizes denial of access to any other data contained in the records or reports, including the identity of the defendant. This provision ensures that while the minor victim’s identity is shielded, the principles of open court records and public scrutiny of the justice system are maintained. Information about the accused, the nature of the charges, court proceedings, and case outcomes (excluding the minor victim’s identifying information) generally remains accessible to the public in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and throughout Minnesota.
• Purpose of the Law: The underlying purpose of § 609.3471 is multi-faceted. Primarily, it aims to protect minor victims from further trauma, harassment, or stigma that could result from public identification. It also seeks to encourage the reporting of these sensitive crimes by assuring victims and their families that their privacy will be respected. Furthermore, it facilitates the child’s cooperation in the investigation and prosecution process by minimizing the fear of public exposure. This contributes to the overall effectiveness of the justice system in addressing crimes against children.

Impact of § 609.3471: Balancing Privacy, Justice, and Public Information in Twin Cities Cases

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 plays a crucial role in the delicate balance between protecting the privacy of minor victims, ensuring the fair administration of justice, and upholding the public’s right to access court information. The implications of this confidentiality mandate are felt keenly in the busy legal environments of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding Twin Cities metropolitan area. This law directly influences how sensitive case information is handled by courts, legal professionals, the media, and the public, striving to shield vulnerable children while maintaining transparency in the justice process.

Protecting Child Victims from Public Exposure and Stigma in Hennepin County

A primary impact of § 609.3471 is the significant shield it provides to minor victims in Hennepin County and across Minnesota from the potentially devastating consequences of public identification. For children who have endured sexual abuse or trafficking, public exposure can lead to severe emotional distress, social ostracism, bullying, and long-term psychological harm. By mandating that records specifically identifying them are not publicly accessible, the statute helps create a safer space for these children to heal and reduces the risk of re-traumatization through unwanted public scrutiny or media attention. This protection is vital for their recovery and future well-being.

The Court Order Exception: Judicial Discretion in Granting Access in Ramsey County

The provision allowing access to a minor victim’s identifying information “by order of the court” introduces an element of judicial discretion, critical in Ramsey County and other Minnesota courts. This exception acknowledges that there might be rare circumstances where access to such information is necessary for the pursuit of justice or for other compelling reasons. However, it places the onus on the party seeking access to demonstrate to the court why such an order is warranted. The judge must then carefully weigh the asserted need for disclosure against the strong statutory presumption of confidentiality and the potential harm to the child victim. This ensures that any breach of confidentiality is a considered decision, not a routine occurrence.

Ensuring Transparency: Public Access to Defendant Information and Case Details in Minnesota

While prioritizing minor victim privacy, § 609.3471 explicitly states that it does not authorize the denial of access to other case data, including the defendant’s identity. This is a critical component for maintaining transparency and public accountability within the Minnesota justice system. The public and media retain the ability to access information about who is accused, the charges they face, the progress of court proceedings, and the outcomes of cases. This ensures that the justice system remains open to scrutiny, which is a cornerstone of a democratic society, even while specific protections are in place for vulnerable victims.

Encouraging Reporting by Safeguarding Minor Victim Privacy in Dakota County

The confidentiality protections afforded by § 609.3471 can play a significant role in encouraging the reporting of sex offenses and trafficking involving minors in Dakota County and statewide. Victims and their families may be more willing to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutors if they are assured that the child’s identity will be protected from public disclosure. This assurance can alleviate fears of stigma, retaliation, or unwanted media attention, thereby facilitating the investigation and prosecution of these heinous crimes and helping to bring offenders to justice. This, in turn, contributes to greater public safety.

How Victim Identity Confidentiality Works: Practical Scenarios in Metro Area Courts

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 provides a clear legal directive: records specifically identifying minor victims in certain serious criminal cases are confidential. But how does this play out in the day-to-day operations of courts and legal processes in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other Twin Cities communities? Understanding these practical applications can clarify the scope of this vital protection.

The statute aims to shield children from public exposure while ensuring the justice system can still function transparently regarding adult defendants and case proceedings. The following scenarios illustrate how these rules are intended to operate, balancing victim privacy with other legitimate interests within the Minnesota legal framework.

Example: Media Request for Records in a Minneapolis Human Trafficking Case Involving a Minor

Scenario Description: A prominent human trafficking case involving several adult defendants and at least one minor victim is being prosecuted in Minneapolis (Hennepin County). A local news organization files a request for all court documents related to the case, seeking to report on the proceedings.

Application of Statute: Under § 609.3471, the court clerk’s office would provide the news organization with access to publicly available records, such as the criminal complaint or indictment (which would name the adult defendants and detail the charges), motion papers, and hearing transcripts. However, any information within those documents that specifically identifies the minor victim (e.g., name, address, specific details that would make their identity obvious) would be redacted or the documents containing such information would be sealed from public view. If the news organization specifically sought the minor victim’s identity, they would need to petition the court for an order, which the judge would grant or deny based on a careful balancing of interests.

Example: Defense Attorney Seeking Access to Normally Confidential Information in a St. Paul CSC Case

Scenario Description: In a St. Paul (Ramsey County) criminal sexual conduct case where the alleged victim is a minor, the defense attorney believes that information pertaining to the minor victim’s identity or specific circumstances, normally kept confidential, is crucial for preparing a defense (e.g., to investigate potential biases or alternative sources of an allegation, within legally permissible bounds).

Application of Statute: The defense attorney cannot simply access these confidential records. They would need to file a formal motion with the court, outlining with particularity why access to specific identifying information of the minor victim is necessary for the defense and how it is relevant. The court would likely hold an in camera hearing (a private hearing) to consider the request. The judge would then decide whether to grant a court order allowing limited access, potentially with strict conditions on how that information can be used and disseminated, always weighing the defendant’s right to a fair trial against the victim’s statutory right to privacy.

Example: Public Accessing Court Filings in a Washington County Case with a Minor Victim

Scenario Description: A member of the public in Washington County is interested in a local criminal sexual conduct case where the victim is known to be a minor. They visit the courthouse or use an online portal to look up the case file.

Application of Statute: The public records system should be configured to automatically restrict access to any documents or data fields that specifically identify the minor victim. The case name might appear as “State of Minnesota vs. [Defendant’s Name].” The public could see the charges, dates of hearings, and names of attorneys and the judge. However, any mention of the minor victim’s name or other direct identifiers in publicly accessible documents should be redacted (blacked out) or the specific documents sealed by the court clerk in accordance with § 609.3471.

Example: Accidental Disclosure and Rectification in an Anoka County Case

Scenario Description: In an Anoka County court filing for a case covered by § 609.3471, a document is inadvertently filed publicly without redacting the minor victim’s name. This is discovered by court staff or one of the attorneys.

Application of Statute: Upon discovery of such an accidental disclosure, immediate action would be required. The party responsible for the filing, or the court clerk, would need to promptly remove the unredacted document from public access and replace it with a properly redacted version or seal the document. The court might issue orders to prevent further dissemination of the improperly disclosed information. This scenario highlights the importance of careful adherence to the statute by all parties involved in handling court records to prevent such breaches of confidentiality.

Navigating Record Confidentiality in Legal Proceedings: Procedural Considerations

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 establishes a strong presumption of confidentiality for records identifying minor victims in specific criminal cases. However, the statute also provides a mechanism for access “by order of the court.” This creates a procedural landscape that legal professionals, court staff, and parties involved in cases in the Twin Cities area must navigate carefully. Understanding these procedural considerations is key to upholding both the spirit of victim protection and the requirements of due process.

The management of confidential information under this statute involves proactive measures by the courts and diligent attention from attorneys for both the prosecution and defense. From seeking access to sensitive records to ensuring their protection if disclosed, the procedures aim to balance competing interests within the Minnesota justice system.

Motions to Access Confidential Records: Standards and Burdens in Minnesota Courts

When a party, whether it be the defense, media, or another entity, seeks access to information specifically identifying a minor victim that is otherwise confidential under § 609.3471, they must formally petition the court.

• Demonstrating Good Cause: Requirement: The party seeking the court order must articulate a compelling reason, or “good cause,” for why access to the confidential identifying information is necessary. This might involve showing that the information is crucial for the preparation of a defense, essential for a fair trial, or serves another significant public interest that outweighs the minor victim’s statutory right to privacy. Vague assertions or fishing expeditions are unlikely to meet this standard in Hennepin or Ramsey County courts.
• Balancing Interests: Judicial Review: The judge will conduct a careful balancing test. They will weigh the strength of the arguments for disclosure against the legislative intent of § 609.3471 to protect minor victims from harm, re-traumatization, and stigma. The potential impact of disclosure on the specific child victim involved will be a primary consideration. The court has broad discretion in making this determination.

Redaction and Protective Orders: Practical Measures in Hennepin and Ramsey County Courts

To comply with § 609.3471, courts and parties must employ practical measures to shield minor victim identities in publicly accessible documents.

• Proper Redaction Techniques: Obligation: All parties filing documents in cases covered by this statute have an obligation to redact (i.e., black out or otherwise obscure) any information that specifically identifies a minor victim before the document is made publicly available. This includes names, addresses, school information, or any unique identifiers. Court clerks in the Twin Cities also play a role in ensuring publicly accessible files are properly redacted.
• Scope of Protective Orders: Tool: If a court grants access to some confidential victim-identifying information, it will typically issue a protective order. This order will detail precisely what information may be accessed, by whom, for what specific purpose, and under what conditions. It may also strictly limit any further dissemination of the information to prevent wider public exposure.

Responsibilities of Court Personnel and Legal Professionals in Maintaining Confidentiality

The effective implementation of § 609.3471 relies on the diligence of various actors within the legal system.

• Clerk of Court Duties: Administration: Court administrators and clerks are responsible for managing court records in a way that complies with this statute. This includes establishing procedures for sealing or restricting electronic and physical access to confidential portions of case files and ensuring that publicly available versions are appropriately redacted.
• Attorney Obligations: Ethics & Compliance: Attorneys for both the prosecution and defense have ethical and legal obligations to protect confidential victim information. This includes properly redacting their own filings, advising their clients and staff about confidentiality requirements, and adhering to any court orders regarding sensitive information. This is a professional responsibility in all Minnesota jurisdictions.

Addressing Breaches of Confidentiality

Despite best efforts, inadvertent or intentional breaches of the confidentiality mandated by § 609.3471 can occur.

• Potential Sanctions: Enforcement: Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information identifying a minor victim can lead to serious consequences. This could include sanctions from the court, such as contempt proceedings, fines, or other penalties against the responsible party or attorney. Professional disciplinary action might also be a possibility for attorneys who violate these rules.
• Remedial Actions: Mitigation: If a breach occurs, the court and parties must take swift action to mitigate the harm. This might involve orders to retrieve or destroy improperly disclosed documents, public statements to correct misinformation (if appropriate and desired by the victim/family), and review of procedures to prevent future breaches.

Answering Your Questions About Minor Victim Record Confidentiality in Minnesota (§ 609.3471)

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471, which governs the confidentiality of records identifying minor victims in certain criminal cases, is a vital piece of legislation. Individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the wider Twin Cities area often have questions about its scope and application. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions.

What is the main purpose of Minnesota Statute § 609.3471?

The primary purpose is to protect the privacy of minor victims in specific serious criminal cases (like sexual assault or sex trafficking) by making records that specifically identify them inaccessible to the public, except by court order. This helps prevent further trauma and encourages reporting.

Which types of cases does § 609.3471 apply to?

It applies to records relating to petitions, complaints, or indictments for violations of Minnesota Statutes sections 609.322 (Prostitution/Sex Trafficking), 609.342 (CSC 1st Degree), 609.343 (CSC 2nd Degree), 609.344 (CSC 3rd Degree), 609.345 (CSC 4th Degree), 609.3453 (Criminal Sexual Predatory Conduct), or 609.3458 (Sexual Extortion), where the victim is a minor.

Is all information in these cases kept confidential in Hennepin County?

No. Only data that specifically identifies a victim who is a minor is made confidential from public access. Other information, including the identity of the defendant, the charges, and general case progress, remains publicly accessible unless sealed for other legal reasons.

How can someone get access to records identifying a minor victim in a Ramsey County case?

Access to such confidential information can only be granted “by order of the court.” A party seeking access must petition the court and demonstrate a compelling reason why disclosure is necessary and outweighs the victim’s privacy interests.

Does this law mean the defendant’s name is kept secret if the victim is a minor?

No. Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 explicitly states, “Nothing in this section authorizes denial of access to any other data contained in the records or reports, including the identity of the defendant.” The defendant’s identity is generally public information.

Who is considered a “minor” under this statute?

While the statute itself doesn’t define “minor,” Minnesota law generally defines a minor or child as an individual under the age of 18. This definition would typically apply in the context of § 609.3471.

Why is it important to keep a minor victim’s identity confidential in Minneapolis?

Public identification can expose minor victims to stigma, harassment, bullying, and re-traumatization. Confidentiality helps protect their emotional well-being, encourages them and their families to report crimes, and facilitates their cooperation with the justice system.

Can the media report on cases involving minor victims in St. Paul?

Yes, the media can report on such cases. However, they cannot access or publish information from court records that specifically identifies the minor victim unless they obtain a court order permitting it. They can report on the defendant, the charges, and public court proceedings.

What happens if confidential information about a minor victim is accidentally released in Dakota County?

If an accidental disclosure occurs, court personnel or the party responsible should take immediate steps to rectify the situation, such as removing the unredacted document from public view and replacing it with a corrected version. The court may issue further orders to prevent wider dissemination.

Does this law apply to records held by police departments or only court records?

The statute refers to “records or reports relating to petitions, complaints, or indictments.” While this primarily points to court-filed documents, the spirit of the law and other data practices rules often extend similar protections to sensitive law enforcement data concerning minor victims, though specific data practices laws would also apply.

Are there any exceptions for academic researchers wanting to study these cases in Anoka County?

Academic researchers would also need to obtain a court order to access records specifically identifying minor victims. They would have to demonstrate to the Anoka County court that their research protocol adequately protects victim confidentiality and that the research serves a significant public interest.

Does § 609.3471 prevent a defendant from getting information needed for their defense?

While the law protects minor victim identity from public access, it does not necessarily prevent a defendant from accessing relevant information needed for their defense through the legal discovery process, often subject to protective orders issued by the court that restrict further dissemination. Access for defense purposes would still be carefully managed by the court.

How does this Minnesota law compare to “Safe Harbor” laws?

While § 609.3471 focuses on record confidentiality, it complements Minnesota’s “Safe Harbor” laws (like § 260E.01 et seq.), which aim to treat exploited youth as victims rather than delinquents. Protecting their identity from public court records aligns with the broader goal of shielding vulnerable youth from further harm.

What if a minor victim wants their identity to be public?

This statute creates a presumption of confidentiality for minor victims. A minor victim, likely through a parent, guardian, or attorney, could potentially petition the court to waive this confidentiality, but the court would still need to consider the child’s best interests.

How can I find out more about a specific case in the Twin Cities if the victim is a minor?

You can access public court records, which will include information about the defendant, charges, and court dates. However, under § 609.3471, you will not be able to access information from those records that specifically identifies the minor victim unless you obtain a court order.

Enduring Effects of § 609.3471: Child Protection and Court Record Transparency in Minnesota

Minnesota Statute § 609.3471, by mandating the confidentiality of records identifying minor victims in specific serious crimes, has a profound and lasting effect on the administration of justice, child welfare, and public access to information within the Twin Cities metropolitan area and across the state. Its implementation reflects a societal commitment to protecting vulnerable children while striving to maintain core principles of judicial transparency.

Strengthening Child Victim Protection and Reducing Re-traumatization in the Twin Cities

The most significant long-term impact of § 609.3471 is the enhanced protection it offers to child victims. By shielding their identities from routine public disclosure in court records, the law helps prevent the secondary victimization that can occur through unwanted public exposure, media scrutiny, or social stigma. This protection is crucial for the psychological healing and recovery of children in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding communities who have endured traumatic experiences. It fosters an environment where children may feel safer engaging with the justice system, knowing their privacy is a priority.

Impact on Media Reporting and Public Awareness of Sex Crimes Involving Minors

While the statute restricts access to minor victims’ identifying information, it does not prevent media reporting on the crimes themselves or the defendants involved. This careful balance means that the media in the Twin Cities can continue to play a vital role in raising public awareness about sex crimes and trafficking involving minors, and in scrutinizing the justice system’s response, without compromising the privacy of individual child victims. This allows for informed public discourse and advocacy for child protection while respecting the specific vulnerabilities of the children impacted.

Balancing Victim Privacy with the Public’s Right to Know in Hennepin/Ramsey Courts

Section 609.3471 exemplifies the ongoing effort to balance the fundamental right of victim privacy, especially for minors, with the public’s legitimate interest in open court proceedings. By ensuring that defendant information and general case details remain accessible, courts in Hennepin, Ramsey, and other counties uphold transparency. The “court order” exception for accessing victim-identifying information provides a mechanism, albeit a stringent one, for situations where a compelling need for disclosure might arise, ensuring that confidentiality is not absolute but is subject to judicial review. This nuanced approach seeks to serve both individual and public interests.

Influence on Investigative and Prosecutorial Practices in Cases with Minor Victims

The existence of § 609.3471 subtly influences how investigations and prosecutions are conducted in cases involving minor victims throughout Minnesota. Law enforcement and prosecutors are aware of the confidentiality requirements and must handle records accordingly. This may involve developing specific protocols for managing sensitive information and redacting documents. Furthermore, the assurance of confidentiality can make minor victims and their families more willing to cooperate fully with investigations, potentially leading to stronger cases and more effective prosecutions, ultimately contributing to the safety of children in the community.

Why Understanding § 609.3471 is Crucial for Legal Representation in Twin Cities Sex Offense Cases

For legal professionals practicing in the complex arena of sex offense and human trafficking cases within Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the greater Twin Cities judicial system, a thorough grasp of Minnesota Statute § 609.3471 is not merely beneficial—it is an absolute necessity. This statute, governing the confidentiality of records identifying minor victims, directly impacts case management, client advisement, litigation strategy, and ethical obligations for both prosecutors and defense attorneys in Hennepin, Ramsey, and surrounding counties. Effective representation hinges on navigating these privacy rules with precision and care.

Advising Clients on Victim Privacy Rights and Limitations in Minneapolis Cases

Attorneys representing any party in a case involving a minor victim covered by § 609.3471 must be able to clearly explain the scope of these confidentiality provisions. For families of minor victims, this means understanding the extent of privacy protections afforded by law and the limited circumstances under which identifying information might be disclosed by court order. For defense counsel in Minneapolis, it involves advising clients on why certain information about the minor complainant is not publicly accessible and the specific legal channels that must be pursued if there is a legitimate, good-faith basis to seek such information for the preparation of a defense. This counsel helps manage expectations and ensures all parties understand the legal landscape.

Litigating Access to Confidential Records in St. Paul Courtrooms

The “by order of the court” exception in § 609.3471 means that attorneys, particularly defense counsel, may sometimes need to litigate the issue of access to confidential information identifying a minor victim. This requires drafting compelling motions that articulate with particularity why such access is essential for a fair trial or to pursue a legitimate defense, and why this need outweighs the strong statutory presumption of confidentiality. Success in such motions in St. Paul or other Twin Cities courts demands a sophisticated understanding of the balancing test judges apply and the ability to present a persuasive argument that meets the high threshold for disclosure, always within the ethical bounds of legal practice.

Ensuring Compliance with Confidentiality Mandates in Hennepin/Ramsey Legal Filings

All legal professionals involved in cases subject to § 609.3471 bear responsibility for ensuring their own filings and handling of documents comply with its confidentiality mandates. This includes meticulous redaction of any information that could specifically identify a minor victim from publicly filed documents. Failure to do so can result in inadvertent breaches of confidentiality, potentially harming the victim and leading to court sanctions or professional repercussions. Attorneys practicing in the busy dockets of Hennepin and Ramsey counties must have robust internal procedures to prevent such errors and to act swiftly to correct any that might occur, always prioritizing the protection of the minor victim’s identity.

Advocating for Fair Application of Privacy Rules in Minnesota Sexual Assault Cases

Ultimately, legal counsel on both sides plays a role in advocating for the fair and consistent application of § 609.3471. For prosecutors, this means championing the protective intent of the statute to shield minor victims from unnecessary public exposure and re-traumatization. For defense attorneys, it involves ensuring that these vital privacy protections do not unduly impede the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial and to confront evidence, which may sometimes necessitate seeking carefully circumscribed, court-ordered access to relevant information. This advocacy, conducted within the framework of the law, is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice process in all Minnesota sexual assault cases involving minor victims.