Did a Minnesota judge overturn a guilty verdict in the food fraud case

1. What happened: a rare post-verdict reversal

Reporting says Hennepin County Judge Sarah West set aside a jury’s August guilty verdict against Abdifatah Yusuf on multiple counts tied to a $7.2 million taxpayer fraud, ruling the prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and that other reasonable inferences were not excluded ^{[1] [2]}. Fox News and other outlets describe the move as “overturning” the conviction and note public and political backlash to the decision ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Different matters: don’t conflate cases

The overturned $7.2 million state/county case is separate from the federal Feeding Our Future prosecutions prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which involve roughly $250 million alleged stolen from federal child nutrition programs and dozens of defendants, including high-profile convictions in March 2025 ^{[3] [4]}. National outlets and DOJ statements document convictions, guilty pleas, and long sentences in that federal scheme ^{[3] [5]}.

3. What the judge said and why it matters

Coverage cites Judge West’s reasoning that the state’s case relied on circumstantial evidence and failed to exclude other reasonable inferences, a legal basis for entering a judgment of acquittal despite a jury verdict when the evidence is, in the judge’s view, legally insufficient ^{[1] [2]}. Such post-verdict reversals are rare, which explains the intense public reaction reported by regional and national outlets ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Political and community reactions are sharp and polarized

Reports highlight immediate political fallout: some state lawmakers and commentators called the ruling shocking or outrageous, while local leaders and advocacy outlets emphasize the broader context of large-scale fraud investigations and community impacts ^{[1] [6]}. News coverage warns policymakers have used the broader Feeding Our Future scandal in partisan attacks, but that does not directly change the legal standard applied in Judge West’s separate ruling ^{[7] [3]}.

5. The broader fraud landscape in Minnesota

Federal prosecutors characterize the Feeding Our Future prosecutions as one of the country’s largest pandemic-era relief fraud cases, with roughly 70–78 defendants and $250 million at issue; multiple defendants were convicted at trial and many others pleaded guilty, and some received lengthy sentences ^{[3] [5] [4]}. DOJ press releases document dozens of charges and guilty pleas tied to fake meal counts, shell companies and money laundering ^{[8] [9]}.

6. Limits of reporting and remaining questions

Available sources do not provide the full written opinion or transcript explaining Judge West’s legal analysis in detail; local outlets summarize her stated reliance on the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard but the formal opinion text is not in the provided reporting ^{[1] [2]}. It is not reported here whether the state will appeal Judge West’s decision or how this ruling will affect related prosecutions; those steps are not mentioned in the current reporting ^{[1] [2]}.

7. How to interpret these developments responsibly

Separate legal tracks exist: state criminal proceedings can produce rulings independent from federal cases that garnered national attention; the overturned $7.2 million verdict concerns a distinct defendant and legal standard ^{[1] [3]}. Readers should note that coverage from partisan outlets (e.g., Daily Mail commentary, Fox News framing) and DOJ press releases frame the story differently—some emphasize the judge’s intervention as agency failure, others stress broad federal convictions—so follow-up reporting and primary court documents are necessary to settle legal specifics ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

If you want, I can pull in the judge’s written order or subsequent appellate filings once available, or compile the timelines of the state-level $7.2M case and the federal Feeding Our Future prosecutions side-by-side from the cited sources.