In a significant development within the medico-legal community, Ramsey County Attorney John Choi announced on Tuesday that convictions in six murder cases remain fair and just, notwithstanding the participation of Dr. Michael McGee, the former Ramsey County Medical Examiner whose forensic testimony and reports have come under intense judicial scrutiny. This determination follows an exhaustive, multi-year independent review of seven murder convictions handled by Dr. McGee during his tenure, marking a critical juncture in ongoing debates concerning the reliability of expert witness testimony in capital and serious felony prosecutions.
The review was precipitated by a federal court ruling in the high-profile matter of *United States v. Alfonso Rodriguez Jr.*, concerning the 2003 abduction and murder of University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin. In that case, District Judge Ralph Erickson (now serving on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit) explicitly characterized Dr. McGee’s testimony as “unreliable, misleading and inaccurate.” His Honor found that Dr. McGee had offered opinions on the witness stand that extended beyond the scope of his autopsy reports and appeared to constitute impermissible speculation. The federal court’s findings ultimately led to the vacatur of Rodriguez’s death sentence, resulting in his resentencing to life imprisonment without parole.
Ramsey County’s response to these judicial admonitions was both measured and methodical. The County Attorney’s Office engaged three independent medical experts—board-certified forensic pathologists with no prior affiliation to Minnesota jurisdictions or the subject cases—to conduct a comprehensive audit of Dr. McGee’s autopsy reports, supplemental findings, and trial testimony across the identified convictions. This external peer review, conducted in consultation with the Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence and the Great North Innocence Project, represented a substantial investment of public resources, totaling approximately $380,000.
According to County Attorney Choi, the panel of independent forensic pathologists primarily identified stylistic and linguistic concerns in Dr. McGee’s work product rather than fundamental substantive errors undermining the ultimate conclusions. “The three medical experts... primarily identified concerning stylistic word choices but not substantive issues with his conclusions,” Choi reported. In certain instances, the experts noted that Dr. McGee employed terminology such as “assault” that carried legal connotations more appropriately reserved for triers of fact, rather than remaining strictly within the province of medical causation and injury interpretation.
In a limited number of cases, the reviewers offered more pointed substantive criticisms. Nevertheless, as Choi carefully articulated, “their review ultimately determined that while the criticisms were valid, they did not go to the aspects of the case that were key to determining the defendant’s guilt.” On this basis, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office concluded that the convictions in six of the seven matters were “fair and just,” providing no legal or factual predicate for post-conviction relief such as vacatur or modification of sentence.
One of the seven cases involves a more recent plea agreement. In that matter, prosecutors have disclosed the review findings to defense counsel, allowing the adversarial process to continue in accordance with due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment and applicable state procedural rules.
Dr. McGee, who served as Ramsey County Medical Examiner for over three decades and provided expert services to multiple counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, did not respond to inquiries seeking comment. His career encompassed numerous high-stakes homicide prosecutions, rendering the current scrutiny particularly consequential for the broader forensic pathology community and expert witness practice standards.
This review process exemplifies the evolving standards of professional responsibility for both prosecutors and retained experts in the criminal justice system. County Attorney Choi emphasized the importance of delineating the respective roles of medical examiners and legal advocates. “They should be helpful to a jury but not lead them to legal conclusions,” he stated. “They should not be advocates for one side or the other.”
The County Attorney further indicated that the exercise has illuminated opportunities for enhanced training within his office. Prosecutors will receive additional instruction regarding the proper utilization of forensic expert testimony, with particular attention to ensuring that expert opinions remain confined to their areas of scientific expertise rather than encroaching upon ultimate issues of guilt or legal characterization reserved for the fact-finder.
The Prosecutors’ Center for Excellence issued a supportive statement underscoring the value of such systemic self-examination: “We support initiatives by prosecutors to identify and rectify the mistakes that will inevitably occur in the criminal legal system. Meaningful review of prior convictions is necessary to ensure accuracy, transparency, and accountability.”
From an expert witness perspective, the McGee matter highlights several recurring challenges in forensic testimony. Courts increasingly demand strict adherence to the boundaries established in *Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals* (or its state equivalents) and *Frye* standards, requiring that expert opinions be both reliable and relevant. Overreaching language—whether stylistic or substantive—risks rendering testimony vulnerable to exclusion or impeachment on cross-examination. The use of legally infused terminology by medical experts creates particular peril, as it may be construed as improper bolstering or usurpation of the jury’s function.
Forensic pathologists serving as expert witnesses would be well-advised to maintain meticulous separation between objective medical findings (e.g., wound morphology, cause and manner of death) and any inferential leaps that might implicate intent, legal classifications such as “assault,” or conclusions about perpetrator actions. Documentation in autopsy reports should be comprehensive and transparent, with any subsequent trial testimony strictly aligned with previously disclosed opinions to avoid allegations of sandbagging or surprise.
The Ramsey County review also underscores the utility of independent peer consultation in high-stakes cases. By engaging qualified, conflict-free forensic pathologists from outside the jurisdiction, the County Attorney’s Office modeled a best practice for ensuring the integrity of expert-driven prosecutions while preserving public confidence in the criminal adjudicatory process.
As this matter draws to a close in Ramsey County, stakeholders in other jurisdictions where Dr. McGee provided services are encouraged to undertake similar due diligence. “Everybody should be doing their due diligence with regard to those cases involving Dr. McGee in other places,” Choi advised.
This episode serves as a salient reminder to the expert witness community: the credibility of forensic testimony remains paramount to the fair administration of justice. Medical examiners and retained experts must navigate an increasingly exacting legal landscape where precision of language, fidelity to the scientific method, and clear demarcation of professional boundaries are not merely aspirational but essential to withstanding judicial scrutiny and appellate review.
The broader implications extend beyond individual convictions. Systemic reviews of this nature contribute meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue surrounding wrongful conviction prevention, the proper scope of expert evidence, and the cultivation of best practices among forensic professionals. As the criminal legal system continues to grapple with the human element inherent in all professional endeavors, proactive, transparent self-correction—as demonstrated here—remains one of the most effective mechanisms for safeguarding both individual rights and the integrity of judicial outcomes.
https://assets.ramseycountymn.gov/files/2025-09/PCE%20Phase%201%20Report%20-%20Case%20Review%20Involving%20Dr.%20Michael%20McGee%20(1).pdf
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
