What was the outcome of Mohamed Noor’s criminal trial and sentencing?
Executive summary
Mohamed Noor was convicted in 2019 of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the 2017 fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk (also known as Justine Damond) and was initially sentenced to 12½ years in prison [1] [2]. In 2021 the Minnesota Supreme Court vacated the murder conviction, ordered Noor be resentenced on the lesser manslaughter count, and a judge resentenced him to 57 months (four years, nine months), a reduction of more than seven years [3] [4] [5].
1. Trial verdict and the original sentence — a jury conviction and a 12½-year term
Following a nearly three-week trial in April–May 2019, a Hennepin County jury found Mohamed Noor guilty of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the July 15, 2017, killing of a 911 caller, Justine Ruszczyk, and Judge Kathryn Quaintance sentenced him in June 2019 to 12½ years in prison [6] [1] [2] [7]. Prosecutors had urged a lengthy term, arguing Noor overreacted and failed to properly assess the situation before firing; defense attorneys sought a probationary sentence and argued Noor acted out of fear in a “perfect storm” of circumstances [2] [1].
2. Appeal and the Minnesota Supreme Court reversal — narrowing the legal theory
Noor appealed his third-degree murder conviction to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which in September 2021 concluded the state had not proven the “depraved mind” element required for third-degree (depraved‑mind) murder and therefore vacated that conviction, directing the trial court to sentence Noor only on the remaining second‑degree manslaughter conviction [3] [8]. The court’s ruling turned on statutory interpretation: it held the depraved‑mind theory applies to generalized indifference to human life, not conduct aimed at a particular victim as the prosecution had argued here [3].
3. Resentencing to manslaughter — 57 months, with credit for time served
On October 21, 2021, Judge Quaintance resentenced Noor to 57 months in prison, the top of the guidelines range for second‑degree manslaughter, after prosecutors asked for the maximum and the court emphasized public‑endangerment factors [4] [9] [10]. The new sentence reduced Noor’s punishment by more than seven years from the original 12½ years; reporting noted Noor had already served roughly 29 months and, under Minnesota rules about release and time served, would face considerably less remaining custody after credit and parole calculations [11] [9].
4. Reactions, context and competing narratives around accountability
The case attracted intense public attention and polarized reactions: some observers framed the original conviction and sentence as a rare instance of significant legal accountability for a police shooting [1] [2], while critics argued the later Supreme Court ruling and the resentencing raised uncomfortable questions about race, legal doctrine and consistency in policing prosecutions [12]. Damond’s family and supporters had pushed for full accountability, while media coverage also recorded gestures of forgiveness from her fiancé at the resentencing; the city settled a civil claim with the Damond family for $20 million after the conviction [13] [4].
5. What the criminal outcome means and what reporting does not settle
Factually, Noor’s criminal journey ended with a manslaughter conviction and a 57‑month term after the higher court removed the murder finding — a materially reduced criminal punishment compared with the original 12½‑year sentence [3] [5] [14]. Reporting in the provided sources documents the legal decisions, the sentences, pleas for leniency and public reaction, but does not settle broader empirical questions about patterns in police prosecutions, how sentencing compares across similar cases, or the detailed administrative consequences for policing policy; those subjects are outside the scope of the cited accounts [12] [4].