What It Means When the Minnesota Supreme Court Grants Review

Every year, thousands of criminal defendants appeal their convictions to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. But only a handful of those cases make it further—to the Minnesota Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court “grants review,” it signals that the justices see an issue of statewide importance, an inconsistency in the law, or a fundamental question of justice that needs clarification.

The Rarity of Review

Review is rare. In a typical year, the Minnesota Supreme Court grants review in less than 10% of the petitions it receives. That means most Court of Appeals decisions are left undisturbed. For the small percentage of cases that are accepted, the Court is not simply deciding whether the lower court was right or wrong in one case—it is shaping the law for the future.

The Circumstantial Evidence Standard and State v. Firkus

One area where the Supreme Court has intervened before is the standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence. Under Minnesota law, when a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, appellate courts must do more than ask whether the evidence supports guilt. They must determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.

In State v. Firkus (2024), the Minnesota Supreme Court underscored the importance of this standard. The Court reminded lower courts that appellate review must be rigorous, not perfunctory, because circumstantial cases carry a greater risk of wrongful conviction. If another rational explanation exists—even if less likely—the conviction cannot stand.

Why McGruder’s Case Matters

That standard is at the heart of State v. Me’Darian McGruder (Case No. A24-1075). Mr. McGruder was convicted of second-degree intentional murder after a bench trial in which the judge rejected his testimony, disregarded forensic evidence, and relied heavily on a key witness whose story changed drastically over time.

When our founding partner, Attorney Sarah Gad, presented oral arguments to the Court of Appeals, all three justices on the panel admitted that the record supported a more rational explanation—an accidental shooting—but affirmed anyway, citing “finality” and deference to the trial court’s credibility findings.

Our petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court argues that this is not how appellate review is supposed to work. The circumstantial evidence standard is meant to protect defendants from exactly this kind of outcome: a conviction upheld even when the full record supports innocence. If disbelief of a defendant’s testimony can be treated as direct evidence of intent, without more, then the burden of proof is silently shifted from the State to the accused.

The Bigger Picture

Mr. McGruder’s case is about more than one conviction. It raises fundamental questions:

• How much deference should appellate courts give to bench trials, where one judge acts as both gatekeeper and factfinder?

• Can “finality” justify affirming a conviction that even reviewing judges acknowledge is inconsistent with the record?

• What are the limits of the circumstantial evidence standard in protecting against wrongful convictions?

These are questions the Minnesota Supreme Court has the power—and the duty—to answer.

Read the Petition

For those interested in the legal arguments in detail, you can read Attorney Sarah Gad's full Petition for Review here: 👉 Read the Petition for Review in State v. McGruder (PDF)