Feeding Our Future juror describes deliberations, bribery shock

On Wednesday a judge sent a Minneapolis man to prison for nearly five years for his role in a rare, and ultimately unsuccessful, conspiracy to bribe a federal juror.

It happened nearly two years ago at the first Feeding Our Future fraud trial, when several of the defendants and two others tried to buy an acquittal by stuffing $120,000 dollars in cash into a Hallmark gift bag and delivering it to a juror’s home. The plot unraveled when the woman called 911. 

Now, another juror in the case is speaking publicly for the first time about how that played out in the jury room. Juror 17, as he was known in court, describes what it was like to be part of Minnesota’s most high-profile federal case. MPR News verified the juror’s identity but agreed not to name him to protect his privacy. 

Juror 17 told reporter Matt Sepic that he believes it’s wrong for the Trump administration to use fraud perpetrated by some people in the Somali American community as a pretext for immigration enforcement. 

The following interview has been edited for time and clarity.

Juror 17: We at the state and the local level, and with the FBI, have been battling [fraud] in the state for a number of years. We have had multiple trials, lots of indictments, lots of guilty pleas and convictions. And so I think the timing is really interesting. [President Donald Trump] made some indication that the additional ICE officers were to battle against fraud, that's not their jurisdiction. That's not what they're here for. 

Matt Sepic: This particular group of defendants was charged with stealing around $47 million as part of a much larger scheme [targeting taxpayer-funded child nutrition programs] that was around $300 million. [Prosecutors showed the jury] lots of five-, six- and seven-figure checks. What did you think when you saw that? 

J17: It was mind-blowing about how much money the state had given to them. Here's a simple piece of paper I can fill out with a pen, and I'll submit it, and the next thing you know, I'll have thousands and thousands of dollars. It was very surreal to see how much money they fraudulently took in; and then, of course, how they just spent it so lavishly. There [were] so little checks and balances, and it was just mind-blowing how brazen they were in their outright theft.

MS: The jury acquitted two of the defendants. Why do you think prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof when it came to them?

J17: For one of the defendants, Said Farah, there was a lot of fishy things for sure, and perhaps we could get him on a few of the elements of a specific charge, but we couldn't get him on every single one beyond a reasonable doubt. And that was frustrating, because we did see things that were very suspicious, but the government just didn't prove that he truly was guilty. And then the other gentleman who we acquitted…

MS: Abdiwahab Aftin.

J17:  Thank you. I'm speaking broadly, just based on conversations, but we were very frustrated that he was even charged, there was evidence of different defendants, speaking about Abdiwahab Aftin, but nothing from him. 

MS: What was it about the approach that their defense attorneys took that you may have found to be effective? 

J17: Steve Schleicher, [Said Farah’s defense attorney,] in his closing arguments, he laid out the burden of proof for each different type of crime, everything from reasonable suspicion and probable cause all the way up to the one that we use in criminal court, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

And as we went through each of the charges, each of the alleged crimes that the government laid out for us in our deliberations, again and again as a jury, we went back to Steve Schleicher’s comments about beyond a reasonable doubt and how high of a bar it is.

MS: This trial, as you would find out later, was marked by a brazen attempt to bribe one of the jurors, known publicly as Juror 52. Judge Nancy Brasel sent [the jury out of the courtroom] while she was sorting out this mess with the attorneys. Did you have any inkling at the time about what was going on? And this was right in the middle of closing arguments in early June of 2024.

J17: Monday morning, we all show up for jury duty into the jury room at 8:45 as planned. What was unusual was that Juror 52 was not there. And as we got closer and closer to the 9 o'clock hour, when we were supposed to start, I think many of us, myself included, became more and more worried. Is she okay? Was she sick? Was she hurt? And I don't remember what time the courtroom deputy came in to grab us, but when she did, we mentioned, you know, Juror 52, she's not here. 

And I remember [the courtroom deputy] saying, “It's okay. She's been dismissed.” What was further odd was that the courtroom deputy said, you know, Judge Brasel wants to speak with each of us individually in court, and when my turn came, based on our jury numbers, I went into the courtroom, I remember she asked a handful of questions, and she asked if somebody had reached out to me over the weekend about the trial. And I said, “No, no one has.” 

It would not make any sense until after we rendered our verdict, and it was read in court late Friday afternoon. Then we were told what happened. And that's when we started to understand what happened and the significance of what happened, and the significance of Juror 52’s integrity, to say, “No, I'm not going to accept your bribe. I am going to be a woman of integrity and actually stand up to this.” 

MS: When we talked on the phone earlier, you said serving on the first Feeding Our Future jury was a life-changing experience. What did you mean by that?

J17: I think it's made me appreciate jury trials way more. As I was sitting there, I was not angry to be on the trial. I'm not angry that I have to upend my life to be here. Because if I was in the same boat where I was in a civil or or criminal situation where I needed a jury, I wanted them to not hate my guts and actually help me through the trial by serving as a juror. 

I was thankful to do it, but it was a life-altering experience, getting to know other men and women on the jury, forming lasting friendships, getting a little bit closer to our justice system and understanding more of the processes that go into it, more of the court proceedings to make sure that that defendants — whether they end up becoming guilty as criminals or not guilty — that they have the best shot at having an adequate defense. And knowing that if I'm ever in that boat or a family member is in that same situation, that they will get the same treatment, where they have men and women of the jury who can decide their fate based on evidence and not based on how they're feeling that morning. 

MS: Thanks very much, Juror 17.

J17: Thank you. Matt.

Most of the 79 people charged in the case have pleaded guilty. Jurors acquitted Said Farah in the fraud case, but he’s jailed and awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to taking part in the jury bribery plot. 

At the second fraud trial last year, a separate jury convicted Feeding Our Future founder Aimee Bock and her co-defendant, restaurant owner Salim Said. The two are also being held in the Sherburne County Jail as they wait to learn their sentences.

It’s unclear if anyone else will face charges in the scheme. All of the prosecutors who’d spent years working on the case quit the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s Office in protest over the Justice Department’s response to the killings by immigration agents of Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti. 

• Private equity tapping into popular autism therapy, report finds
• Liberian official’s Minnesota group home accused of overbilling Medicaid
• Report takes deep dive into the Walz administration fraud response
• Five group homes. Two scandals. Health Department program under microscope