with respect to the motion itself, i don't even see any mention made, specifically, of the DA's failure to include a written waiver of counsel notice, in the plea agreement. there is, as you noted, just a brief mention of the rule, by number. that's it. it's then tied, tenuously, to the failure to provide an oral judicial examination.

there's a lot of extraneous verbiage in both the motion and response. do these guys get paid by the word?

all the nonsense leading up to the fateful event is just that, nonsense. totally irrelevant to the issue at hand: was craig correctly advised of his right to counsel, with respect to the plea agreement, and was that right presented as required by MN law? that's it, that's all that matters.

geez, if these lawyer's were doing my job, they'd get reamed on review.

with regards to the outcome, i'm not sure i wholly buy into your position. simply put, the DA admits, in his motion, his failure to follow the rule of law; that the notice be written, and affirmed in writing, by the defendant. he attempts to gloss over this failure, by noting that he told sen. craig, several times, on the phone, of this right, and that sen. craig, on the phone, waived it.

can't get much clearer than that: the DA affirms his actions violated state law. or rather, his failure to act, in the manner prescribed. it's not the defendant's job to make sure the prosecutor does his correctly, it's the court's.