She reports, "Elvig’s trial is scheduled for Oct. 1."
Sakry reports the trial is set for Anoka County District Court, while noting Palumbo has transferred prosecutorial duty to Isanti County. I do not know if there are plans to bring in a judge from outside Anoka County to preside if the trial ends up here and not also in Isanti County. It is not uncommon to move things or make unusual arrangements when political dimensions suggest it might be the fairest way to prosecute and hold a trial. It appears plea bargaining has not been considered, at least there so far is no offer and acceptance. It can happen the day trial may be set to start, or during trial. Presuming trial is held, whether postponed or on Oct. 1, the final jury instructions issued by the judge may be interesting - and the subject of a possible appeal. Expanding the number of counts is a tactic. The prosecution only has to win on one. Elvig has to prevail on all if he is to avoid a felony conviction.
.....................................................
Elvig has pled innocent, and is presumed innocent unless/until proven guilty. Presumably Elvig will seek a jury trial. Elvig is represented by attorney Richard Malacko, who is quoted in reporting.
Ramsey's Charter might have a procedure specified in the event of a felony conviction. However, I have not studied it, online here.
My understanding is that until a final judgment is attained, a conviction is subject to reversal or remand on appeal; so if there is a conviction and effort to remove Elvig from council, pending appeal he can argue it premature.
The City Attorney, if there is a conviction, might need to search Minnesota law for statutory guidance; but as a charter city, that is made more complex. If the Charter is silent on procedure, policy, and authority of the balance of the council to act; then by default the procedure specified for statutory cities would apply; if there is law covering the question of service pending appeal and absent a final judgment.
The only noteworthy precedent I know of has been federal, the House's expulsion of James Traficant. I believe procedures were in place for such a contingency at the federal level, and that his peers in the House did not muck around in some questionable ad hoc manner.
Again, with no trial yet any/all speculation is premature. Elvig presently has every right to continue in office and assert his innocence. The mayor in one report correctly says it is not for him to prematurely judge Elvig, nor is it proper for any of us in Ramsey who only know of charges, with no trial yet.
English law has long treasured the principle of awaiting a trial and before that presuming innocence. Our own law is derived from that. The nobles did not want the King having power to imprison without a trial and were effectively restive about it, my understanding being that right to a jury and presumption of innocence dates to the Magna Carta.