Submitted Amicus Curiae in State v. Rand, No. A07-1522 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2008) (UNPUBLISHED).
Argued independent non-profit domestic violence programs are not an agent of the prosecutor’s office under Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 9.01, subd. 1(8).
Submitted Amicus Curiae in Beardsley v. Garcia, 753 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. July 31, 2008).
Argued a father who has only signed a recognition of parentage (ROP) has no legally recognized status as a parent and thus is not entitled to an award of parental custody or parenting time in an order for protection proceeding.
Submitted Amicus Curiae in State v. Spence, 768 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. July 16, 2009).
Argued it is dangerous to require battered women to have an order for protection in place in order to be afforded the protection of the criminal burglary statute.
Submitted a Writ of Prohibition in In re: Alexandra House v. Powers, No. A11-1811 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011).
Argued the release of documents from a domestic violence shelter violated state and federal law.) of a voluntary intoxication defense. This ruling undermines the strong public policy of Minnesota to support criminal justice procedural reforms and statutes that enhance the ability of the state to hold domestic violence offenders accountable for their
Submitted Amicus Curiae in Rew v. Bergstrom, No. A10-2145 (Minn. 2014).
Argued the legislature and courts have recognized the long-term extension of an order for protection, which is consistent with several other state statutes, is an important tool for victims who have suffered from recurring abuse and fear further harm.
Submitted Amicus Curiae in Schmidt ex rel PMS v. Coons, 818 N.W.2d 523 (Minn. 2012).
Argued the language of the Domestic Abuse Act, Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, requires the petitioner to have experienced domestic abuse as defined in statute and the Minnesota Court of Appeals has applied an incorrect standard for the issuance of an order for protection.
Submitted Amicus Curiae in State v. Ness, No. A12-0290, A12-0291 (Minn. 2013).
Argued because domestic violence cases are uniquely susceptible to victim/witness intimidation, coercion and manipulation by offenders, protective measures such as DANCOS are a vital tool in the court’s response to such tactics, helping to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and the fair administration of justice.
Submitted Amicus Curiae in In re Facebook, Inc. v. Aguayo-Gomez, A13-0579 (Minn. Ct. App. May 1, 2013).
Argued the court incorrectly ordered in camera review, the district court relied upon a case, State v. Kutchara, that is inapplicable and outdated.
Submitted a Writ of Prohibition In re 360 Communities v. Abdi, A14-1972 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2014).
Argued the release of documents from a domestic violence shelter violated state and federal law.