Minnesota AG special unit says man’s 2001 murder conviction should be overturned

posted in: Society | 0

A man who was convicted of murder in 2001 should be exonerated, a special unit of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office said Thursday, saying prosecutors used shoddy legal tactics and unreliable evidence to secure a conviction in the 1998 killing of an 84-year-old storekeeper.

Brian Pippitt, 62, has been serving a life sentence for the murder of Evelyn Malin in Aitkin County. In a lengthy report and announcement, the Conviction Review Unit of the state Attorney General’s Office said Pippitt’s conviction was built on flawed legal work.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his office’s team “conducted a careful, lengthy, objective review of the case,” and that he supported the findings.

“No person or community is safer, and justice is not served, when an innocent person is convicted and imprisoned,” he said.

The Attorney General’s Office said Pippitt’s case marks the first time the special unit has recommended the full exoneration of an incarcerated person.

Pippitt’s attorneys filed a petition Wednesday for post-conviction release in Aitkin County District Court. The filing requests that Pippitt’s conviction be vacated and the charges against him dismissed.

James Cousins, an attorney with Centurion, a nonprofit that works to free innocent people from prison, started working on Pippitt’s case in 2015. He submitted an application on behalf of Pippitt to the Conviction Review Unit, which was created in 2021 to remedy potentially wrongful convictions.

“Brian Pippitt had nothing to do with this murder, he wasn’t involved at all. And he’s been wrongly incarcerated for 25 years,” Cousins said. “This is just a gross injustice that continues every day.”

Aitkin County Attorney James Ratz, who did not handle Pippitt’s prosecution, could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday. A staff member who answered the phone at the Aitkin County Attorney’s Office said Ratz would be out of the office until next week. The county attorney who prosecuted Pippitt was disbarred in 2007, Ellison’s office said.

Malin was found dead in the living quarters connected to her store on the morning of Feb. 24, 1998. She had been beaten and strangled. Prosecutors would later contend that Pippitt and four other men burglarized Malin’s store for beer and cigarettes and killed her in the process.

The case relied on testimony from co-defendants who were given favorable plea deals and sentencing recommendations in exchange for their cooperation, investigators with the Conviction Review Unit found. Both witnesses have since recanted their testimony.

The prosecution also relied on testimony from a jailhouse informant who said Pippitt confessed to him that he killed Malin. But the informant’s testimony conflicted with other evidence investigators had developed, the report said. No fingerprints, hair, or DNA were collected from the scene that matched Pippitt.

Pippitt’s trial attorney failed to address these shortcomings and didn’t provide an adequate defense, the special unit said. They also found that two alternative suspects were never fully investigated and fully cleared of wrongdoing.

The Aitkin County Attorney has 20 days to respond to Pippitt’s petition for release, Cousins said. A hearing could be scheduled to review evidence in the case, or the county attorney could request that a judge fast-track Pippitt for release.

“He’s a very stoic, even-tempered man,” Cousins said of Pippitt. “He was, of course, ecstatic when the AG’s report came out. But he’s under a lot of stress, because every day that goes by, he’s hoping that report will result in his release.”

Related Articles

Crime & Public Safety |


‘Without Sgt. Laurie, we might still be wondering,’ says family of missing St. Paul woman found slain in storage unit

Crime & Public Safety |


Charges against warden, guards at Wisconsin’s Shawshank-like prison renew calls to close it

Crime & Public Safety |


Charges: Volunteer with Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office youth program sexually assaulted girl

Crime & Public Safety |


After I-694 crash, Maplewood mother grapples with loss of two children in 15 days

Crime & Public Safety |


Man given 25 years for St. Paul execution-style murder of man he didn’t know

Review: ‘Bad Boys: Ride or Die’ leaves Will Smith and Martin Lawrence stranded

posted in: News | 0

At one point in “Bad Boys: Ride or Die,” Miami police detective Mike Lowrey enters a panic attack-induced trance while bullets are flying. There’s only one way out. Martin Lawrence smacks Will Smith in the face not once, not twice, but three times, so that the man with top billing can shake it off and get back to the killing.

Chris Rock is nowhere in sight in this movie. But at that moment, the footage spinning in the audience’s mind alongside what they’re watching is a flashback to the wallopalooza at the 2022 Oscars, when Smith over-avenged a “G.I. Jane” joke emcee Rock made at Jada Pinkett Smith’s expense.

The “Bad Boys” franchise is all about righteous payback, so when Lawrence triple-slaps Smith it’s the two-years-later comeuppance the audience knew would come someday, somehow. If the movie’s about anything other than franchise maintenance in a dark time, it’s about karma. (Lawrence’s character, Marcus Burnett, undergoes a near-death experience and can’t shut up about past lives.) If those slaps are photographed and edited with the artless blunt force and cramped, cellphone-screen-friendly framing of nearly everything else in “Ride or Die,” too bad. Those are matters of technique and finesse, neither of which matters here.

Millions remain loyal to the “Bad Boys” vehicles. They enjoy watching Smith and Lawrence do their thing. I enjoy watching them do their thing. But this time, the thing comes with a little extra strain, sloppier mood swings, a grimmer, more numbing array of slaughter. I wish more of “Ride or Die” were like its final 90 seconds, in which three characters are arguing about who’s going to use the grill. Funny, extraneous, nothing much, but a recent preview screening audience seemed especially grateful for the laughs on the way out. Getting there in a genre mashup this mashed-up — a killer giant-sized albino alligator? Sure, fine — is considerably less than half the fun.

Despite its initially rosy box office projections, now downgraded, “Ride or Die” feels about right for this frankly shaken moment in 2024 moviegoing. Habitual multiplex attendance has been eroded by uneasily merged companies formerly in the business of making movies. Now they’re in the business of figuring out streaming platform survival tactics first, and what to throw in the stream second. The fate of theatrical exhibition runs a distant third.

Still, “Bad Boys: Ride or Die” constitutes an old-fashioned distribution model, the way “Bad Boys for Life” did in early 2020, just before the pandemic. Directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah, known as Adil & Bilall, return for duty. The script pits our bad men (Smith and Lawrence are a combined 114 years old now; I’m calling them men) against their corrupt Miami law enforcement ranks, mobbed up with drug cartels. Lowrey marries his physical therapist, Christine (Melanie Liburd, who spends much of the film as a battered, anguished hostage); Tasha Smith replaces Theresa Randle as Burnett’s wife, Theresa.

Returning players include Vanessa Hudgens as good cop Kelly, Joe Pantoliano as the late, dream-sequences edition of Capt. Howard; and Jacob Scipio as Lowrey’s son, whose beef with his dad periodically surfaces after Lowrey and Burnett are framed for murder, pursued by every bounty-hunting gang member with a weapon in Florida.

The script constitutes a string of bush-league errors we’re not supposed to care about, starting with the audience getting way, way out ahead of the characters regarding who’s hiding what. Do we go to franchise items like this, or put up with them on the couch, simply for the white-noise reassurance of gunfire, fireballs, trash talk and periodic reminders that, like the “Fast and Furious” movies, it’s all about family? I wonder.

There are other ways to approach a movie like this. How about making it funny when it’s trying to be? “Ride or Die” makes you pathetically grateful for any comic impulse, such as Lowrey and Burnett running into a Confederate flag-waving enclave of yahoo racists and improvising a Reba McEntire song at gunpoint. Smile, cringe, whatever, it provides a break from the generic, arrhythmic action beats, the witless raunch (Tiffany Haddish, wasted in a one-scene cameo), the clinically alluring gun porn.

Directors such as Adil & Bilall, who try everything and nothing matches, might want to check out some ’80s titles for visual and tonal inspiration, starting with Walter Hill’s “48 Hrs.” and Martin Brest’s “Beverly Hills Cop.” Those movies worked, and work still, even if they spun off terrible, heartless sequels. The originals remain super-solid examples of how substantially different action comedies can do justice to both action and comedy. There are more recent examples, but since the nervous 2024 screen economy is stuck in a perpetual time loop with whatever worked before, whether the new script works or not, these two Eddie Murphy ringers are a good place to start.

We can talk plenty about the visual aggravations of “Ride or Die.” But everything has a chance to go fundamentally wrong with a movie long before the first day of filming. If a movie doesn’t care enough about its selling points, aka the stars, to give them decent lines more than twice per hour, the “bad” in “Bad Boys” ends up being the wrong kind of bad. And, in a truly sad way, its own review.

‘Bad Boys: Ride or Die’

1.5 stars (out of 4)

MPA rating: R (for strong violence, language throughout and some sexual references)

Running time: 1:55

How to watch: In theaters June 7

Related Articles

Entertainment |


Movie review: Indie gem ‘I Used to Be Funny’ a story of trauma, catharsis

Entertainment |


MyTalk’s Brittany Arneson and ‘Jason Show’ sidekick Kendall Mark will replace the ‘Lori and Julia’ afternoon talk show

Entertainment |


‘Survivor’ favorite and North St. Paul native Carolyn Wiger to compete on ‘The Traitors’

Entertainment |


Move over, Barbie: Universal developing ‘Monster High’ film based on Mattel dolls

Entertainment |


Gary Kriesel named grand marshal of Lumberjack Days parade

Movie review: Indie gem ‘I Used to Be Funny’ a story of trauma, catharsis

posted in: News | 0

Sam (Rachel Sennott) is depressed. Dissociative and disconnected, she spends her days bed-rotting, microwaving lunch meat and searching her name on Twitter. Never mind getting onstage at Toronto’s Comedy Bar, where she used to titillate audiences with her material about sex, dating, shopping and periods, Sam can’t even leave the house.

Sam doesn’t feel funny anymore. Her brain is too occupied by her PTSD. Her roommates Paige and Philip (Sabrina Jalees and Caleb Hearon) are sympathetic but tired, her ex-boyfriend Noah (Ennis Esmer) is confused and sad. To make matters worse, Brooke (Olga Petsa), the teenager Sam used to nanny, has been reported missing. The last time Sam saw her was when Brooke showed up on her doorstep after lobbing a rock through her window in a drunken rage, calling her a liar.

This is the situation into which we are dropped at the outset of Ally Pankiw’s “I Used to Be Funny,” a story of trauma, catharsis and stand-up comedy. Through a jarring nonlinear narrative composed of flashbacks, memories and the harsh reality of the present, we will wind our way through Sam’s broken psyche to piece together the puzzle of what happened. Sadly, it’s almost too obvious from the outset.

Sennott, who got her start in stand-up comedy, but has become an indie film darling with genre-spanning films like “Shiva Baby,” “Bodies Bodies Bodies” and “Bottoms,” has demonstrated she can hold her own as an actor. But “I Used to Be Funny” is her most dramatically demanding role yet. It’s a stretch, and she just manages it, but proves she can lead a movie as the emotional anchor in a role that demands a wide range.

The film is a character study in contrasts, glimpsed in moments over the course of a few years. The dead-eyed, bedridden Sam is a far cry from the easygoing young woman who interviews for an au pair job with a Toronto police officer, Cameron (Jason Jones), to care for his 12-year-old daughter Brooke, while her mother is hospitalized with a terminal illness. Though Brooke is too old for a nanny or babysitter, Sam becomes a crucial presence in her life, a big sister, friend and sometimes surrogate mother.

In flashbacks, Sam’s nonchalant charisma conveys a relaxed and confident young woman, but in Sennott’s performance, we can see the careful effort required of Sam to maintain this outward demeanor, charming, assuaging and placating those around her — especially men. She wants to prove she can hold her own, that she is funny, that she is worthy of attention, but this kind of humorous soothing is also a survival mechanism, a safety strategy that women have honed over years of socialization.

Sam used to joke in her set that her flirty move on dates is to make men pinky promise they won’t murder her. Making light of violence against women is part of her act, castrating its power, denaturing the sting. Then she becomes paralyzed by actual violence, and Pankiw slowly reveals the events to us as Sam becomes more willing to open her mind to the memories, facing her demons simply because she can’t do anything else.

Pankiw has been honing her screenplay for over a decade, and while some of the plot beats hew toward heightened melodrama within this lo-fi indie milieu, the writing itself is insightful, incisive and authentic. Sam’s guilt over her condition, believing herself unworthy of kindness and love, is deeply relatable. Casting real comedians like Sennott, Jalees, Hearon and Esmer also makes for dialogue that feels real, and funny, their irrepressible riffing a natural part of their conversations. And Sennott is ably matched by Petsa, a fantastic young actor, in navigating the emotional roller coaster of this complicated story.

Pankiw keeps the visual style gritty and low-key, with understated but lovely cinematography by Nina Djacic. The formal experimentation is relegated to the edit and story structure, which unfolds in jagged ellipticals, mimicking a fickle, troubled mind. Many of the uncomfortable ideas are explored in Sam’s comedy, a masterful way for Pankiw to tackle these themes. In her film debut, she delivers a full, and fulfilling, narrative arc that is anchored by a surprisingly complex performance from Sennott. Rooted in place, character and emotional truth. “I Used to Be Funny” is a rare indie gem worth discovering.

‘I Used to be Funny’

3 stars (out of 4)

No MPA rating (some swearing, sex, and teen drinking and drug use)

Running time: 1:45

How to watch: In theaters on Friday, June 7

Related Articles

Entertainment |


Review: ‘Bad Boys: Ride or Die’ leaves Will Smith and Martin Lawrence stranded

Entertainment |


MyTalk’s Brittany Arneson and ‘Jason Show’ sidekick Kendall Mark will replace the ‘Lori and Julia’ afternoon talk show

Entertainment |


‘Survivor’ favorite and North St. Paul native Carolyn Wiger to compete on ‘The Traitors’

Entertainment |


Move over, Barbie: Universal developing ‘Monster High’ film based on Mattel dolls

Entertainment |


Gary Kriesel named grand marshal of Lumberjack Days parade

F.D. Flam: Americans need COVID insight. Congress blew its chance

posted in: Politics | 0

Congress blew its chance Monday to give Americans some insight into the COVID pandemic that dominated our lives for years. Following a 15-month inquiry, Republicans on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic called Anthony Fauci to testify in public at a special hearing, but committee members spent most of the time posturing rather than probing the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Many of us still want to know why the U.S. had more burdensome restrictions yet still lost more people, per capita, than other countries. We still want a coherent, honest explanation for how the pandemic started. Some thoughtful scientists have suggested a bipartisan investigation similar to the 9/11 Commission to give Americans the answers we deserve. Yet Monday, representatives from both parties showed no curiosity, either for themselves or for the American people.

Polarization has dumbed our politicians down. Ranking Democrat Raul Ruiz of California spent most of his time flattering Fauci and apologizing to him for the Republicans’ questions. He repeated that the U.S. lost a million people to COVID, as if this justified not asking questions when that number instead cries out for an explanation from our public health leaders.

Americans deserve to know why Fauci and other public health figures issued reassurance rather than warnings back in February and early March of 2020, when there was evidence the virus was spreading beyond Wuhan and could be deadly to some, especially the elderly.

Republicans, for their part, harped on Fauci’s earlier statements that the 6-foot rule for physical distancing “just sort of appeared.” They twisted this to imply that Fauci invented it out of the blue and that it alone was the basis of all the business and school closures.

The real problem with the 6-foot rule was that it discounted the possibility that the virus traveled through the air on smaller particles that could infect people even further away. Eventually, scientists gathered good data that showed time mattered more than distance — that being in the same room with an infected person more than 30 minutes put you at risk of infection, not being within 6 feet for a few seconds.

Had the public health establishment reacted more quickly to this change in scientific understanding, it would have been even harder to justify re-opening indoor dining and bars. Is that really the point Republicans wanted to make?

Other countries justified keeping schools open not by discounting the 6-foot (or 2-meter) notion, but with data showing that kids were at much lower risk of serious illness than older adults. They also emphasized that school was valuable — more valuable than bars and restaurants — and that a zero-risk situation was impossible. Americans’ political polarization impaired our leaders’ ability to weigh such risks and benefits.

Illustrating the depths to which our political leaders have sunk, Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene called to put Fauci in prison. Such rhetoric might be fueling death threats that Fauci, 83, says he still faces.

But Greene wasn’t interrupting anything very enlightening, and in a less outrageous way, her colleagues, too, were posing non-questions and pontificating for the purpose of display.

Fauci started to explain that the 6-foot rule came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had to recommend protective measures before scientists fully understood how the new disease spread and which precautions would work best. But our representatives failed to follow up on why the public wasn’t better informed of these precautions’ inherent uncertainty, or why the public health community was so slow to respond to evidence of longer-distance airborne spread.

Fauci was also evasive on questions about vaccine mandates when he repeated that “vaccines save lives” — a statement that’s true but irrelevant. Some cancer screenings and drugs “save lives” but we don’t force people to get them. He did admit that at first, the vaccines seemed to prevent transmission but that scientists’ understanding changed as the virus evolved and as vaccines’ protection waned.

Republicans could have questioned whether vaccine and booster mandates should have been lifted once it was clear the shots prevented serious illness only, and had little ability to protect others against infection. But those questions didn’t fit either political party’s preferred narrative — that all vaccine and booster mandates were terrible or that all were essential.

Much of the discussion centered on a series of emails from one of Fauci’s top advisers, David Morens, suggesting they keep their communications about the origin of the virus hidden from the public. Americans deserve better than this evasive behavior. Indeed, the investigation into COVID’s origins has left an information gap. This hearing was a chance to fill that gap, but our politicians were too busy talking to help us learn anything new.

House Democrats wanted to push the idea that the virus came from nature. That’s kind of a non-answer. Virologists have effectively refuted claims that the virus could only have come about through genetic manipulation. It might have evolved naturally in bats, but how did it get from bats to people? Either through illegal wildlife markets or scientists working with bat viruses. Neither explanation is innocent or purely “natural.”

The hearing started on a hopeful note when the chairman, Brad Wenstrup, an Ohio Republican, said that ” … we should have been honest — especially about what we didn’t know.” That sort of humility is the only way to learn anything, but it keeps getting lost when we choose political leaders who think they already know everything.

F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Lisa Jarvis: Zyn is following Big Tobacco’s playbook for teens

Opinion |


Carl P. Leubsdorf: Nixon understood what Trump won’t acknowledge

Opinion |


Lisa Jarvis: Boys need the HPV cancer vaccine as much as girls

Opinion |


David French: Civil liberties make for strange bedfellows

Opinion |


Hal Brands: Putin’s shadow war against Europe is intensifying