State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rekieta, Kayla Rekieta, April Imholte

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

There's something I have been wondering about, concerning your right to remain silent and the jury not being allowed to take that into account:
What happens if I talk to the police about certain things and remain silent on others. Can the jury take the partial silence into account and assume that what I refused to say was bad for me? Or would that violate the 5th amendment.

The answer to that is a bit complicated. The current (relatively new) guidance is that you must unequivocally invoke your right and stay silent. I guess you could invoke, make a statement (waive), invoke again, but can not imagine that looking good to a jury despite the 5th amendment protections (@An0minous thoughts?).

Just remaining silent is not sufficient to invoke your 5th amendment rights as they wrote in Miranda, Berghuis v. Thompkins overrules that, see the following (bold mine):

Although Miranda imposes on the police a rule that is both formalistic and practical when it prevents them from interrogating suspects without first providing them with a Miranda warning, see Burbine, 475 U. S., at 427, it does not impose a formalistic waiver procedure that a suspect must follow to relinquish those rights.
[...]
In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police. The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkins’s right to remain silent before interrogating him.

speculation about the shell casings.

I've got a horrifying idea that I need a scale for, but how much salt (in Nick's case coke) can you fill an level in a .22lr case?

Also, just my own opinion here, but I don't trust somebody that leaves their firearms and rounds so carelessly laying around.

The rifle under the bed may not be careless, is his door a deadbolt lock? Are there windows? take away the high on coke part and I feel not enough information to make a call.
I knew someone who slept with a rifle in his arms.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I know very little of US law, but I see 2 different opinions so I want to ask: Wouldn't he get fuck all if he just killed his pride?

What I mean is he goes up to the pastor, apologizes, talks with him, goes to rehab (and has documents to prove it), stays sober, makes amends, tries to clean his image. I can't really believe that a judge would look at that and think a rehabbed dude would need to do serious time away from the kids. The whole "admission of guilt if you go to rehab" seems retarded.

He would likely still cop a felony conviction and lose his right to vote/own a gun (unless nonviolent felons get the right restored from a case), and all the fun of having a felony. I think Nick's situation is such that the court might want to move him to a full blown deferred judgement given he has no criminal history, is a lawyer, has a family, but I think Nick's own ego will make that difficult. He might get put into a deferred judgement anyways. Put him on the right path. Diversion process.

But I think that would be super duper lucky and unlikely given Nick's attitude and personality that keeps him addicted. A probation period that lasts multiple years might not be possible for him. Maybe it will, maybe thats where this all ends up, it would probably be hugely beneficial for him. Like most drug addicts he needs help. But most judges also know that a drug addict can't be helped unless they want help. And if they can't comply and get help, they'll be made sober by force.

Correct. It struck me as odd that they would do a whole home search, including for safes, when safes or a locked room is where you keep things specifically to secure things from kids, so how would the contents of a safe be pertinent to a child neglect reporting? There's either something we're not seeing because the DA hasn't released it yet, or it's a case of this locality attempting a run-around of the system to bust a suspected (but obviously known) drug user, and taking advantage of a mandatory reporting do do so. Just because I'm having an amazing time watching Nick get his comeuppance for abandoning his best content for degeneracy, it doesn't mean I trust that the system that's more obviously corrupt by the day is doing this all on the up and up.

I'm pretty sure the search warrant probably included the master bedroom, bathroom, and any safes within its purview. Its unlikely it was just 'walk in there and see whats in open sight'. There was probably a good deal of specificity.

People wondering if the Judge should recuse, it's not going to happen. The only implication of Bias she might have is the fact that Rekieta said mean things to her and thinks she is a retard. If a Judge had to recuse every time a Defendant did that, there would be no judges for any case Criminal or Civil. A more compelling argument would be that since she's already been handling the civil trial, she could have her ability to adjudicate the Criminal case at cross purposes since she has already been making judgements in Rekieta's legal matters unrelated to a criminal proceeding. That's the only way I could see that going down. But even that is a stretch

Depends a lot actually. If Nick files a motion to recuse they might just move it to a different judge to moot the issue. Typically a court like this has a wide number of judges and moving it to another judge would be virtually costless.

My ignorance is how they got ok to search in the first place. THAT is the document we haven't seen yet. Of course once you see things in the open, you have probable cause to go farther.

Probably between the livestreams and the mandated reporter. If there was any report of cocaine use + the Coke stream they could absolute get flags.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Depends a lot actually. If Nick files a motion to recuse they might just move it to a different judge to moot the issue. Typically a court like this has a wide number of judges and moving it to another judge would be virtually costless.

Kandyohi has 3 judges. I think regardless Nick made a mistake of shit talking the judge in public. Only ego bigger than a lawyer in the court is a lawyer in a robe. I don't think she's going to throw out his rights blatantly and get the cops to pull a Rodney King on him, but a lot of decisions where the chip may fall where it may might land against him.

I did wonder how spousal privilege will apply in this case, since it is the testifying spouse that must waive it. Seems a bit hard when the prosecution can just threaten the witness with higher charges if they don't waive it.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Kandyohi has 3 judges. I think regardless Nick made a mistake of shit talking the judge in public. Only ego bigger than a lawyer in the court is a lawyer in a robe. I don't think she's going to throw out his rights blatantly and get the cops to pull a Rodney King on him, but a lot of decisions where the chip may fall where it may might land against him.

I did wonder how spousal privilege will apply in this case, since it is the testifying spouse that must waive it. Seems a bit hard when the prosecution can just threaten the witness with higher charges if they don't waive it.

I think its likely that if Kandyohi has 3 judges and he gets a motion to recuse filed they'll just swap the judges and moot it rather than ever addressing it. They probably have a number of relief judges as well.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Can anyone explain if there's deep Balldo lore about Rekieta being a county muckraker to the degree that he would be targeted by the local government to shut him up? He's criticized some judges and lawyers, but Barnes et al. are acting like he's Deep Throat in Watergate or something. I've been following Nick in some form since his coverage of the Oberlin/Gibson Bakery case, and I have no idea where this depiction of Nick as a righteous exposer of governmental corruption has come from.

A family member has been texting me about this, and they're a big fan of Barnes and co. I've found it hard to explain that Barnes doesn't really know what he's talking about, and that if the family member knew what I knew about Rekieta, they'd be far more comfortable thinking the warrant and arrest were justified. Right now, Barnes watchers are being led to think this was targeted overkill for personal consumption of drugs that should have started instead as a home check by CPS.

 

[polyester]

Has anyone considered April being caught beforehand with drugs on her own and rolling over? [...] This would explain how she almost immediately walked

Couldn't that be explained by the prosecutor getting confirmation that April didn't live there?

If you find contraband under the home owners' bed and inside the home owners' safe, that makes for a good possession charge against those home owners, but I imagine it would be hard to pin it on a guest.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Can anyone explain if there's deep Balldo lore about Rekieta being a county muckraker to the degree that he would be targeted by the local government to shut him up? He's criticized some judges and lawyers, but Barnes et al. are acting like he's Deep Throat in Watergate or something. I've been following Nick in some form since his coverage of the Oberlin/Gibson Bakery case, and I have no idea where this depiction of Nick as a righteous exposer of governmental corruption has come from.

A family member has been texting me about this, and they're a big fan of Barnes and co. I've found it hard to explain that Barnes doesn't really know what he's talking about, and that if the family member knew what I knew about Rekieta, they'd be far more comfortable thinking the warrant and arrest were justified. Right now, Barnes watchers are being led to think this was targeted overkill for personal consumption of drugs that should have started instead as a home check by CPS.

This is absolute bullshit. Most counties/cities/townships have a local """muckraker""" like Nick that shits things up but they're not 'righteous exposers of government corruption', they have some retarded vendetta that got them made a pariah. Because they were retarded.

Barnes is a faggot and should be ignored.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Nick that shits things up

But Nick doesn't even seem to do that, other than shitting on a couple of judges or local lawyers on scattered streams over the past 6 years. The way he's being talked about, it's like I missed an entire arc where he was pointing out local police abuse or vindictive prosecution, getting involved with local elections, etc.

Barnes is a faggot and should be ignored.

At least when it comes to Nick, I totally agree.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

But Nick doesn't even seem to do that, other than shitting on a couple of judges or local lawyers on scattered streams over the past 6 years. The way he's being talked about, it's like I missed an entire arc where he was pointing out local police abuse or vindictive prosecution, getting involved with local elections, etc.

At least when it comes to Nick, I totally agree.

Yeah Nick is probably more along the lines of the local asshole lawyer who nobody liked and they were probably pretty thankful he went away to be an internet goon.

 

[Maude Snew]

I agree with Potentially Sean that the different child abuse charge is likely a typo, but if not I suspect it has to do with her allowing the older kids to "discipline" the younger ones and the state thinks it went to far.

Or there's some Drexel related things the young ones mentioned and we don't know about.

Covid was taken from the Moon, don't you know? How can Covid be real, if the Moon landing wasn't real? I jest, of course.

Pff look at you still believing the moon is real.

 

[RodgerDodger]

This. Some lawtube pundits like Sean seemed to think not opening the door was the right call. I don't think so. It is usually the right call in usual circumstances to not help the police investigate you. Not opening the door when they announce a raid and shove a warrant in your face is an exception. They are going to come in. Would you like your door knocked off it's hinges or in place after they leave?

There is often some confusion regarding the Police's ability to freely lie. There are some things they can't lie about as that would get everything tossed.

"We can get a warrant" is a common enough cop lie.

But

"We have a warrant. It's waiting for you at the house" is not something that could be a lie. Because lying in that way would get any and all evidence tossed. If they tell you they actually have a warrant, they generally do. That's not a lie they can tell.

And Nick knows this. It's why he didn't bother to read the warrant and just tossed it on the ground. He knew it was legit the moment the cop said it and asked for the door code.

 

[Treasure Champs]

Maybe his own kid gave the cops the information. It seems like things had deteriorated badly enough that no one was really taking care of the kids anymore. A 16 year old with four younger siblings might decide that things have gone too far, particularly if mom and dad are zombies most of the time. Most kids aren't going to want to do that to their own parents, but one with younger brothers and sisters to watch out for possibly would. He would know where the drugs were at.

Surely the most likely chain of events is that one of the kids went to the pastor for help. Whether this was one of the older kids who knew there was mandated reporting and wanted to help out the younger kids, or whether it was one of the younger kids who was stressed out and just needed a responsible adult, I couldn't say. This could explain the discrepancy in charges of 'neglect' and 'abuse' between Nick and Kayla. Nothing in the house itself could have pointed to a distinction between their behavior, seeing as they live in the same room and seem to have been charged for the drugs the same. But interviewing the kids could have, or the pastor repeating a story told to him by one of the kids.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

We'll get the probable cause affidavit soon enough. some enterprising Kiwi will go get a copy of the docket, or something.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Correct. It struck me as odd that they would do a whole home search, including for safes, when safes or a locked room is where you keep things specifically to secure things from kids, so how would the contents of a safe be pertinent to a child neglect reporting?

Because they saw drugs and they expanded their search purpose would be my guess.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Because they saw drugs and they expanded their search purpose would be my guess.

I am almost certain drugs were in the initial search warrant with some degree of specificity.

I don't think they could justify the search warrant otherwise, a mere neglect thing would be more like a wellness check. Unlikely they would get a search warrant and act they way they did.

 

[Barry McKockner]

Couldn't that be explained by the prosecutor getting confirmation that April didn't live there?

If you find contraband under the home owners' bed and inside the home owners' safe, that makes for a good possession charge against those home owners, but I imagine it would be hard to pin it on a guest.

That guest's credit cards were amongst the contraband in the master bedroom. That's a strong connection. She likely flipped.

Because they saw drugs and they expanded their search purpose would be my guess.

My questioning is the probable cause behind the search warrant to begin with. I've never seen a door busting search warrant even for actual abuse with photo evidence, much less neglect. I'm going to have to wait until that's released, but the way the narrative is right now, it was just a simple pastor who reported neglect that got the door kicked in.

My conspiracy theory is that KF's initial judgement was right, that Aaron did in fact narc, but it wasn't about the kids, it was about the drugs, which is how they got the search warrant instead of just a cps investigation. He was waaay too quick to blame us for it, and knows waay too much to not have been involved in the process.

 

[SPCC Archivist]

We'll get the probable cause affidavit soon enough. some enterprising Kiwi will go get a copy of the docket, or something.

The search warrant affidavit is literally all I'm waiting for. That, and the bodycam footage.
An awful lot of Lawtube grifters need to be bullied into submission. Especially Kurt, the dysgenic-looking walking drum of mayonnaise (lose the hat, you fucking retard), and his ilk who were online earlier on stream noseguarding to hell and back.

 

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

My conspiracy theory is that KF's initial judgement was right, that Aaron did in fact narc, but it wasn't about the kids, it was about the drugs, which is how they got the search warrant instead of just a cps investigation. He was waaay too quick to blame us for it, and knows waay too much to not have been involved in the process.

Just speculating, but there’s also a possibility the nanny got involved. I’d wager she saw some shit before she quit. I don’t think she’d leave the kids she was taking care of without getting help.

 

[RodgerDodger]

I know very little of US law, but I see 2 different opinions so I want to ask: Wouldn't he get fuck all if he just killed his pride?

What I mean is he goes up to the pastor, apologizes, talks with him, goes to rehab (and has documents to prove it), stays sober, makes amends, tries to clean his image. I can't really believe that a judge would look at that and think a rehabbed dude would need to do serious time away from the kids. The whole "admission of guilt if you go to rehab" seems retarded.

If he swallowed his pride, went straight to rehab and acted contrite and sought meaningful changes in his life he would get fuck all for the drug charges. (Assuming he wasn't actually dealing)

The looming issue is the CPS investigation. That is only just getting started and That doesn't play by the same rules. Heaven forbid any of those kids test positive for drugs, for example. (Yeah a kid eating one of Mommy's special gummies is not an opposite accident. It's a hard felony.) What exactly was going on with that pack of depraved degenerate sex addicts in that house? It's a situation where the kids being ignored, unfed and neglected is one of the better options.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

That's the mandatory reporting required of clergy, which has been found to be a violation of the 1st(freedom of religion, and speech) in some states, and the 4th follows from that, no mandatory report, no basis for the warrant.

A report doesn't have to be from a mandatory reporter to be actionable. The point of it is that certain people have an obligation to report, not that only required reporters' reports have merit. If the pastor were to want to fight about his being a mandatory reporter, which would only come up if he were being charged with not reporting, realistically, that could be a 1A argument (not necessarily a winning one, but an argument). And that the pastor is or is not a valid mandatory reporter doesn't change the weight of the statements made.

I agree under Heller the the most they can probably legally do is say you can't have a firearm in public while intoxicated, but the possessions issue predominates the case. The gun thing is a misdemeanor, for crying out loud.

Agree the gun charge is meh, and I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if it goes away in a negotiation.

But - and I don't know if the Constitutionality of the MN law Nick is charged under has been challenged - you mention Heller. Bruen is now the standard (since 2022) for challenging the Constitutionality of these types of prohibitions. Under Bruen, courts should evaluate challenged statutes that prohibit/limit gun ownership based on various whether the prohibitions are protections traditionally/historically applied. It's led to more statutes being struck down on 2A grounds, and some of those are in appeals but stayed until another case (Rahimi) the Court is scheduled to hear this year is decided and possibly refine or clarify its holding in Bruen. Rahimi is about a prohibition on having a gun while being under a DV protective order.

And the gun charge is a misdemeanor, but it is a gross misdemeanor, with sentencing guidelines of 21-28 (or so, going from memory) months, presumed stayed but confinement possible. So not completely a nothing, though again, could be discarded easily bc, as you said, the apparent primary concern is the drug possession.

Can anyone explain if there's deep Balldo lore about Rekieta being a county muckraker to the degree that he would be targeted by the local government to shut him up? He's criticized some judges and lawyers, but Barnes et al. are acting like he's Deep Throat in Watergate or something.

There is not. He's handled a handful of cases. And before his sad failure to represent April in her speeding ticket, idk how long it's been since he had one. Otherwise, he's just been a bitch litigant and called a judge a bitch. He's not involved in town or county anything or running around rattling cages. Nick is a non-entity in his town - or at least was until Thursday.