Carlton County dismissed the assault prosecution against Leonard Simich, even though a prosecutor later acknowledged that Victim M had been PUNCHED in the face. The attorney who signed the dismissal, Amy Voss, works / worked for the law firm (Halberg Criminal Defense) associated with Simich's defense. What happened to accountability for the person who was struck?
by Carlton County Watch
When the person who gets punched becomes the defendant
Imagine sitting in your parked vehicle when another person approaches your driver's-side window and strikes you in the face.
You contact law enforcement. Deputies respond. The person who struck you is arrested and criminally charged.
You might reasonably expect the criminal justice system to investigate the physical violence, evaluate the evidence, and make an informed decision about prosecuting the alleged assailant.
… NOT IN CARLTON COUNTY! …
But what happens when prosecutors dismiss that case and continue prosecuting the person who reported being attacked?
That is the extraordinary situation at the center of two Carlton County criminal proceedings arising from an October 17, 2024 incident in Moose Lake, Minnesota.
… AND WE CALL BULLSHIT …
Leonard Simich was arrested and charged with assault following his violent assault on Victim M.
M and witnesses reported that Simich punched M in the face while he was seated inside his Volkswagen Golf.
On December 13, 2024, the Carlton County Attorney's Office dismissed the criminal complaint against Simich, stating only that the dismissal was “in the interests of justice.”
Yet the County Attorney's Office continued pursuing misdemeanor charges against Victim M involving disorderly conduct and use of 911 during the law-enforcement response.
The County’s actions are certifiably INSANE!
The result raises an uncomfortable question:
How did the person who reported being punched become the person still facing criminal prosecution, while the assault case against the person accused of delivering the blow was dismissed?
The prosecutor admits there was a punch
On July 17, 2026, Assistant Carlton County Attorney Demonte Noble addressed the underlying assault during a pre-trial hearing.
On page 11 of the official transcript, Noble stated:
“There is no dispute that [M] was punched in the face or at least hit in the face during this incident.”
Noble was responding to M’s defense attorney, who had emphasized the unusual circumstances of prosecuting the individual who had been struck.
This is not merely M’s characterization of the incident. The acknowledgment appears in the prosecutor's own recorded statement to the court.
If the State does not dispute that M was struck in the face, what evidence persuaded the State that abandoning the assault prosecution served the “interests of justice”?
Even the protection-order court concluded Simich punched M
There is another important judicial record.
Following evidentiary proceedings concerning M’s petition for an Order for Protection against Simich, the district court issued a Order for Protection against Simich and in favor of M.
M’s Order for Protection was extended by the district court in July 2026 and will be extendable every year.
The court found that acts of domestic abuse had occurred.
The Order for Protection remains in place.
Is it now acceptable to punch someone because you dislike what they say?
Consider the broader implications.
Two individuals have a disagreement. One becomes angry over the other's words. The disagreement escalates into physical violence.
Does the government's response depend on whether the person throwing the punch felt insulted?
Does a heated exchange give someone permission to strike another person?
Of course not.
Unless you are in Carlton County. The County Attorney and the County Sheriff have made it crystal clear that you are free to assault anyone, for any reason, and the victim will be prosecuted, not the offender.
This is not only true in M’s current case but also true in the situation involving former Carlton County Sheriff’s Deputy (now Mayor of the City of Carlton) Mike Soderstrom.
Minnesota's assault laws do not establish a general right to punch another person because of a disagreement or offensive remark.
The issue is that the publicly available dismissal document does not explain what specific circumstances led Carlton County prosecutors to terminate Simich's case.
The dismissal did not establish that Simich acted lawfully. Nor did it result in a criminal trial resolving whether his conduct was justified. The County Attorney made sure that Simich would never be held accountable for his actions.
That leaves the public with a reasonable question:
What was the actual justification for abandoning the criminal assault prosecution?
The Amy Voss — Halberg Criminal Defense connection
The decision to dismiss the Simich prosecution becomes more deserving of scrutiny when examining the professional relationships among the attorneys involved.
Assistant Carlton County Attorney Amy E. Voss signed the December 13, 2024 dismissal.
Before joining Carlton County, Voss worked at Halberg Criminal Defense.
According to employment records previously examined by Carlton County Watch, Voss began working for Halberg as a law clerk in May 2019 and became an associate attorney in January 2021.
Her application for employment with Carlton County identified Halberg Criminal Defense as her employer.
Why does this matter?
Because attorney Marsh Halberg represented Leonard Simich in the criminal proceedings arising from the October 17, 2024 encounter and also represented Simich in the Order for Protection case.
In other words, the prosecutor, Amy Voss, who signed the dismissal of Simich's criminal charges had previously practiced at the firm associated with Simich's legal representation.
There is an additional issue.
A Halberg Criminal Defense webpage preserved on June 9, 2026 continued to identify Amy Voss among the firm's associate attorneys.
The public deserves an explanation of how obligations of potential attorney misconduct or potential bias were addressed here.
To date, County Attorney Jeff Boucher has REFUSED to answer the questions involving Voss, Halberg, and Simich.
“In the interests of justice” — justice for whom?
The official dismissal of State v. Leonard Lloyd Simich, Court File No. 09-CR-24-1731, contains a brief statement invoking the interests of justice.
It does not identify insufficient evidence, witness difficulties, a self-defense determination, or any other particular reason.
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.01 requires a prosecutor dismissing a criminal complaint to state the reasons in writing or on the record.
Moreover, Minnesota Statutes § 611A.0315, as applicable in 2024, required a record of the specific reasons for dismissing qualifying domestic-assault charges.
Was a more specific explanation documented elsewhere? If so, where is it? No public records seems to exist!
What information was communicated to M as the person reporting the assault? The answer is easy: None!
And why was the assault case against Simich dismissed while the State continues to vindictively prosecute M?
Prosecutors possess considerable discretion. They may dismiss cases when the evidence or circumstances warrant that decision.
But discretion should not become a substitute for accountability.
The phrase “in the interests of justice” should have meaning. It should not leave the public guessing about why an assault prosecution ended.
The person struck in the face deserves justice, too
In M’s case, the consequences have extended well beyond the confrontation itself.
Instead of seeing the assault allegations resolved through a criminal trial, M has spent two years defending himself against misdemeanor charges arising from his subsequent interactions with law enforcement.
M maintains that his calls to 911 were legitimate requests for assistance and that his verbal objections to the responding officers were constitutionally protected expression.
The State disputes his position and has continued its prosecution.
The courts must ultimately resolve those charges under the applicable law and evidence.
But there is a broader public concern.
When someone reports physical violence, that person should have confidence that the criminal justice system will evaluate the allegations fairly, without favoritism, retaliation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
M did obtain an Order for Protection against Simich. That protection matters.
But the dismissal of the criminal assault case left a separate question of criminal accountability unresolved.
A person does not forfeit the right to seek protection against physical violence simply because he is argumentative, critical of government, or involved in contentious family litigation.
Being difficult to get along with is not a license for someone else to strike you in the face.
Carlton County Attorney Jeffrey Boucher owes the public an explanation
Jeffrey Boucher did not sign the December 2024 dismissal. That document bears Amy Voss's signature.
Nevertheless, as the current Carlton County Attorney, Boucher leads the office responsible for the prosecution of M and for responding to questions about its handling of these related criminal matters.
Carlton County Watch has previously reported on government-data requests seeking records relating to the Voss–Halberg relationship, prosecutorial assignments, conflicts of interest, and the Simich dismissal.
Those inquiries concern how public authority was exercised.
The County Attorney's Office should address the questions those records raise and identify any lawful basis for withholding responsive information.
The larger question: equal justice under the law
The criminal justice system does not promise that every accusation will result in a conviction.
It does promise legal processes designed to protect individual rights and apply the law fairly.
That promise matters especially when the government must decide whether to prosecute someone accused of physical violence.
In this case, the public record establishes that Simich was arrested and charged, that prosecutors dismissed his case, and that a prosecutor subsequently acknowledged that M was struck in the face.
The subsequent protection-order findings provide further reasons to examine the decision.
The professional association between the prosecutor (Amy Voss) who signed the dismissal and the firm connected to Simich's representation (Marsh Halberg) raises additional questions about conflict review and transparency.
Why did Carlton County dismiss the assault prosecution? What specific interests of justice were served? Were potential conflicts properly evaluated? And was the person who reported being struck treated fairly throughout the process?
For Carlton County residents, these questions extend beyond one family's dispute.
The government's handling of criminal prosecutions helps determine whether people trust law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts to protect them when they report violence.
A criminal justice system must provide meaningful protection to people reporting assault, even when those individuals criticize the government or engage in speech others dislike.
The people of Carlton County deserve transparency about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
And the person who was struck in the face deserves to know why the State dismissed the criminal case arising from that encounter.
Justice should not depend upon who someone knows, which attorneys previously worked together, or whether the person seeking protection has criticized public officials.
It should depend on the law, the evidence, and a fair exercise of public authority.
Carlton County Watch Stands with M
Carlton County Watch stands with M.
We have reviewed the public data, the court filings, the police body camera video’s and have concluded that in no way was M disorderly. M’s language and conduct are PROTECTED by the First Amendment Clause of the United States Constitution.
The County’s actions are vindictive.
Today it is Victim/Defendant M. Tomorrow is could be YOU!
M is scheduled for a jury trial on November 2, 2026 in Carlton County.
Carlton County Watch will be present for all public elements of the trial and we will report all events fairly.
Join us. Stand with M.