Is there justice in North Dakota?

Not if your case is highly visible, politically sensitive and focuses on unethical and possibly illegal activity by an Assistant State’s Attorney.
I’m referring to Sandy Blunt’s pending appeal before the ND Supreme Court.
Blunt has been waiting – and waiting – and waiting for the Court to issue a ruling in the appeal of his conviction on (highly suspect) charges of inappropriate use of state funds.
Fifteen months ago Blunt’s lawyer filed his appeal, The appeal was in part based on their contention that the prosecutor didn’t give Blunt’s attorney exculpatory evidence that would have proven that the most important charge against Blunt wasn’t a crime.
Among other transgressions, the prosecutor didn’t give the memo from the state auditor, a memo that clearly exonerated Blunt, to Blunt’s attorney.
Yesterday, the Court issued 20 new opinions. Each and every one of the opinions was from an oral argument that took place after Blunt’s. Adding insult to injury, 18 of the 20 opinions were from 2010 oral arguments with many of the 18 from March and April dates (one even from just 8 days ago on May 3).
Oral arguments in Blunt’s case were heard ten months ago.
Why hasn’t the Court issued their ruling?
Could it be the Court is delaying issuing their ruling until after the June 8 primary elections for (among other offices) District Court Judge? What does that have to do with Blunt’s case? Well, the Burleigh County Assistant State’s Attorney who is the object of the appeal happens to be running for – you guessed it – District Court Judge.
Reports from ND indicate Cynthia Feland is running a nonstop campaign for office, complete with Facebook page (check out the recipes…), an effort that has her taking time out of her valuable workday to stick campaign signs into supporters’ yards.

Yep, this is the same ‘Cynthia Feland’ currently under investigation by the State Police for potential crimes including conspiracy. The state Bar Association has also determined Feland’s actions during the Blunt trial merit investigation.
So let’s sum this up.
Blunt’s conviction may well have been obtained illegally. And the ‘illegality’ isn’t some technicality, but rather a blatant and successful, effort to mislead the jury.
The prosecutor may well have committed a crime during the case, and if not, has at the very least caused two separate organizations to begin investigations into her (possibly criminal) activities.
The state Supreme Court has refused to issue a ruling in the case that triggered the two investigations, despite it’s clear and public commitment to speedy trials. (which includes this statement – “A goal of the judicial system of North Dakota is prompt disposition of cases.”
Except when that case is politically sensitive and affects a prosecutor accused of criminal behavior.
(Disclosure – I’ve had the honor and privilege of working with Sandy Blunt on two engagements. I met Sandy after I began writing about the goings-on at ND’s state work comp fund)>