The lawyer of former Albert Lea City Manager Jim Norman argues that the prosecutor in Norman’s criminal trial jeopardized her client’s right to a fair trial.

Norman, found guilty last year of misusing the city-issued credit card, filed an appeal in September 2011 with the Minnesota Court of Appeals to overturn his conviction.

In a brief filed Friday laying out the basis of the appeal, Norman’s public defender, Lydia Villalva Lijo, alleges Waseca County prosecutor Brenda Miller made arguments during her closing statements that improperly distracted the jury.

The court document stated a prosecutor must not only be a “zealous advocate” for the state but must also protect the rights of the defendant.

“In this case, in her zeal to convict appellant of the charged offenses, the prosecutor failed to protect appellant’s rights during closing arguments,” the brief states. “The prosecutor emphasized the need to hold appellant accountable because he was a public official and these comments inflamed the jury’s passions against appellant.”

The argument alleges Miller distracted the jurors from the evidence.

“The arguments were impermissibly calculated to stir the jury’s emotions and, in particular, to stir their emotions as citizens and taxpayers in a prosecution against a former city official,” it continues.

The jury ultimately found Norman guilty of permitting false claims against government by a public officer, theft with the intent to exercise temporary control and misconduct by a public officer. The conviction left him with six felonies and one gross misdemeanor on his record.

The convictions involved charging more than $2,000 of personal purchases during his first few months as city manager in 2010.

Norman was sentenced to 90 days of electronic home monitoring and five years of probation. He is not allowed to obtain employment or act in a nonemployment capacity that requires him to be a fiduciary for any other person.

The brief asks that Norman’s convictions be reversed and a new trial ordered.

 

Other arguments

Aside from the argument involving the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct, the appeal also argues that Norman’s guilty verdicts be reversed because he did not “allow false claims against the city.”

Court documents state Norman made purchases using the city-issued credit card during his first month on the job, but, the documents state, after he received the credit card statement, he wrote and submitted a personal check to the finance director for reimbursement.

While the prosecutor argued during the trial that this meant Norman acknowledged there were improper expenses, Norman’s lawyer said this shows that the items were not paid by the city.

The brief argues that the state failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Norman committed a theft by swindle. It states the prosecutor did not prove that Norman intended to deprive the city of any money or that his conduct constituted a swindle.

Norman’s “use of the city credit card may have shown poor judgment and it was arguably dishonest, but it was not fraudulent,” the lawyer writes.

Court documents state Norman did not attempt to conceal information about the purchases and did not deny making them. In fact, the trial showed the city previously had allowed employees to make personal purchases and reimburse the city, such as when making the travel arrangements. This included the former finance director, the complainant of the original allegations against Norman.

To issue its decision, the Court of Appeals will review arguments from both sides along with the transcripts from the trial, including discussion made on the record but without a jury present.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, which is handling the case for the state, was unable to be reached for comment.