The Paper Trail: Public Records Request Seeks Answers About Amy Voss, Halberg Criminal Defense, and the Simich Dismissal
A Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request seeks records concerning prosecutor Amy Voss, her former relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense, and the dismissal of State v. Leonard L. Simich. Carlton County Watch is following the request and examining what the government's own records may show.
by Carlton County Watch
On July 29, 2026, a public-data requester submitted a comprehensive Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request to Carlton County Attorney Jeffrey Boucher concerning the investigation, prosecution, and dismissal of State v. Leonard L. Simich, Carlton County Court File No. 09-CR-24-1731.
Interim Carlton County Attorney Jeffrey Boucher. Source: https://www.carltoncountymn.gov/151/Attorneys-Office
The data requester contacted the Carlton County Watch and shared the request.
The request seeks existing government records concerning prosecutor assignments, conflict checks, screening and recusal procedures, communications involving Halberg Criminal Defense, the decision to dismiss the Simich prosecution, and Carlton County's handling of Assistant County Attorney Amy E. Voss's prior professional relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense.
Boucher acknowledged receiving the request on July 29 and indicated that the Carlton County Attorney's Office would begin working on it.
As of August 7, Carlton County Watch is aware of no responsive records having been produced and no anticipated inspection date, production schedule, or estimated completion date having been provided to the requester.
That does not, at this stage, establish a violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Who Is Amy Voss?
Amy E. Voss's own Carlton County employment materials provide important context for understanding why the July 29 public-data request seeks records concerning conflict review, prosecutor assignments, screening procedures, and the Simich dismissal.
Voss attended Mitchell Hamline School of Law from August 2017 through May 2020 and received her Juris Doctor in May 2020. Her résumé states that she was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in October 2020.
Her relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense, however, began before she became a licensed attorney.
According to the résumé Voss submitted to Carlton County, she joined Halberg Criminal Defense as a law clerk in May 2019, while still attending law school. She remained with the firm and became an associate attorney in January 2021.
Her July 2022 Carlton County employment application similarly identified Halberg Criminal Defense as her then-current employer, listed her position as Associate Attorney, identified attorney Eric J. Nelson as her supervisor, and reported that she worked more than 40 hours per week. Voss wrote that she had worked as a law clerk for Halberg from May 2019 until her promotion to associate attorney in January 2021.
That chronology matters.
When Voss applied to work for Carlton County in July 2022, she had graduated from law school only a little more than two years earlier and had been admitted to the Minnesota bar for less than two years.
A substantial portion of her formative legal career therefore occurred at Halberg Criminal Defense.
From Government Law Clerk to Private Criminal Defense
Before joining Halberg Criminal Defense, Voss worked as a law clerk with the Washington County Attorney's Office.
Her Carlton County application states that she left that position because:
“I decided to take a clerkship with Halberg Criminal Defense to gain experience in the private field.”
By July 2022, when Voss applied for employment with Carlton County, she expressly described herself in her cover letter as someone who “currently work[ed] in private practice in the Twin Cities as an associate attorney with Halberg Criminal Defense.”
The County therefore knew from Voss's own application materials that Halberg Criminal Defense was not a distant or incidental former employer.
It was the private criminal-defense firm where she had worked since law school and where she had begun her career as a licensed attorney.
Voss and the Derek Chauvin Defense
Voss's work at Halberg Criminal Defense was substantive.
Her Carlton County employment application states that her duties included advising criminal-defense clients about pending charges and possible outcomes, reviewing evidence, developing case strategies, and assisting as second-chair counsel in State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin.
That experience provides additional context for the nature of her professional relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense.
Voss was not merely an administrative employee who briefly passed through the firm.
Her own records establish that she joined Halberg while attending law school, remained there after becoming a licensed attorney, worked under Eric Nelson, and participated in substantive criminal-defense representation.
None of that establishes wrongdoing.
It does, however, make Carlton County's conflict-review procedures particularly relevant when Voss later became a public prosecutor.
A June 2026 Halberg Website Still Listed Voss
There is another documented fact that raises an additional question.
Carlton County Watch has reviewed a Halberg Criminal Defense webpage captured on June 9, 2026.
The webpage described the firm's legal team and stated that it was “rounded out by associate attorneys Lucas Dawson, Zach Graham and Amy Voss.”
The same webpage described the listed lawyers collectively as part of the firm's criminal-defense team and told prospective clients that hiring the firm provided access to the expertise of its attorneys.
The captured page also carried a 2026 copyright notice.
The listing creates an obvious factual question:
Why was a sitting Carlton County prosecutor still being publicly identified on a private criminal-defense firm's website as one of that firm's associate attorneys?
That question can be answered with evidence.
The July 29 public-data request specifically seeks Carlton County records concerning the Halberg website listing, including when County officials first became aware of it, whether the matter was investigated, whether Voss requested removal of her name, what date the County understood her relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense to have ended, and whether any continuing employment, compensation, financial interest, or other formal professional relationship existed.
The Question Is Not Whether Voss Once Worked for Halberg
That fact is already established by Carlton County's own employment records.
The more important question is:
What did Carlton County do with that information once Voss became a prosecutor?
When a matter involving a person represented by Halberg Criminal Defense came before the Carlton County Attorney's Office, what safeguards were applied?
Was a conflict check performed?
Who performed it?
What names and relationships were searched?
Was Voss screened from any part of the matter?
Was she recused or reassigned?
Did a supervising attorney review her involvement?
Was an outside prosecutor considered?
Was an independent review performed?
Was a written determination made that no conflict existed?
And what records document those decisions?
Those are not accusations.
They are factual questions about the operation of a public prosecutor's office.
The Simich Prosecution
Those questions take on particular importance in connection with State v. Leonard L. Simich.
The prosecution ultimately ended in dismissal – with the explanation by Voss --
“in the interests of justice.”
The July 29 MGDPA request therefore seeks not only records concerning Voss's relationship with Halberg Criminal Defense, but also records documenting how the government reached the decision to discontinue the criminal prosecution.
The request seeks existing dismissal or declination memoranda, charging-review records, written recommendations, authorization documents, case-closing materials, communications with law enforcement, communications with Halberg Criminal Defense or representatives of Simich, and records identifying the person or persons who recommended, authorized, approved, or directed dismissal.
It also seeks records concerning whether the matter was ever considered for reassignment or independent review by another prosecuting authority.
Those records could provide important answers.
If another prosecutor independently reviewed the evidence and approved dismissal, the records may establish that.
If supervisors conducted a conflict review, the records may establish that.
If Voss was screened or restricted from portions of the case, the records may establish that.
If the County concluded that no conflict existed, the records may explain how that conclusion was reached.
And if the County reports that no responsive documentation exists for particular safeguards or decisions, that fact may itself warrant further questions.
The absence of a document does not necessarily prove that an event never occurred.
But it may tell the public something about how significant prosecutorial decisions are documented inside Carlton County government.
What the July 29 Request Seeks
The request is unusually comprehensive.
Among other things, it seeks:
Carlton County Attorney's Office policies governing conflicts, screening, recusal, prosecutor assignments, outside employment, and referral to outside prosecutors;
records showing when Voss became involved in the Simich matter and who assigned her;
case-management assignment histories and audit trails;
conflict-search reports, checklists, database results, notes, memoranda, and correspondence;
records concerning screening, ethical walls, recusal, disqualification, reassignment, or restrictions on access;
written consents, approvals, waivers, or determinations;
dismissal memoranda and records documenting the reasons for dismissal;
communications involving the County Attorney's Office, Sheriff's Office, Halberg Criminal Defense, Marsh Halberg, Leonard Simich, or representatives;
records concerning independent review or referral to another prosecuting authority;
records concerning communications with victims or witnesses;
and County records concerning the June 2026 Halberg Criminal Defense website listing.
The request expressly seeks existing government data.
It does not ask Carlton County employees to create new documents, conduct research, answer interrogatories, or provide legal opinions.
That distinction matters.
The question is not what Carlton County can explain after the fact.
The question is what the contemporaneous government record already shows.
There Are Several Possible Answers
Carlton County Watch believes one principle should govern reporting as responsive data emerge:
The evidence gets to determine the conclusion.
The records may demonstrate that Carlton County conducted a thorough conflict review.
They may show that another prosecutor independently examined the Simich prosecution.
They may establish that Voss played little or no role in the dismissal decision.
They may show that County officials were aware of Voss's prior professional relationship and took appropriate safeguards.
Or the records may reveal omissions or unanswered questions that warrant additional scrutiny.
At present, Carlton County Watch does not know which conclusion the records will support.
That is not a weakness in the investigation.
It is the purpose of the investigation.
A Professional Timeline
The documents currently available establish the following chronology:
May 2019: Voss begins working as a law clerk for Halberg Criminal Defense while attending law school.
May 2020: Voss graduates from Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
October 2020: Voss is admitted to practice law in Minnesota.
January 2021: Voss becomes an associate attorney at Halberg Criminal Defense.
2021: Voss assists in the defense of Derek Chauvin.
July 2022: Voss applies to Carlton County while identifying herself as a current Halberg Criminal Defense associate attorney.
December 2024: The Simich criminal prosecution is dismissed.
June 9, 2026: A captured Halberg Criminal Defense webpage continues to identify Voss among the firm's associate attorneys.
July 29, 2026: An data requester submits a comprehensive MGDPA request seeking records concerning Voss, Halberg Criminal Defense, conflict review, and the Simich prosecution.
The early portions of that chronology are documented in Voss's Carlton County employment materials. The June 2026 webpage separately identifies Voss among Halberg's associate attorneys.
What Happens Next
At this stage, the most important thing Carlton County can provide is not rhetoric.
It is records.
Conflict checks.
Assignment histories.
Screening records.
Communications.
Dismissal documentation.
Independent-review records.
And records concerning what County officials knew about the continuing Halberg website listing.
As those documents become available, Carlton County Watch intends to examine them carefully and report what they establish.
That includes evidence that may support Carlton County's decisions just as much as evidence that may raise additional questions.
Public confidence in a prosecutor's office should not depend upon asking citizens simply to trust that appropriate safeguards occurred.
Where government records exist, those records can show what happened.
Why This Matters
Former private attorneys become government lawyers every day.
Prior employment at a criminal-defense firm is not misconduct.
Representing unpopular or controversial criminal defendants is not misconduct.
And the dismissal of a criminal prosecution does not, standing alone, establish favoritism or corruption.
The issue is different.
When a prosecutor's former professional relationships intersect with a criminal case handled by the prosecutor's government office, reasonable safeguards help protect both the defendant and the public from conflicts -- or even the appearance that prosecutorial discretion was influenced by relationships outside government.
Amy Voss's own employment records establish a significant professional history with Halberg Criminal Defense.
A June 2026 webpage continued to identify her as one of the firm's associate attorneys.
A criminal prosecution involving a Halberg-represented defendant was dismissed.
Those facts do not answer the conflict question.
They make the question worth answering.
And that is exactly what the July 29 public-records request is designed to do.
The best way to determine whether Carlton County's safeguards worked is not speculation.
It is documentation.
Carlton County Watch will follow the paper trail wherever it leads.