He's not representing her, at least not technically, in typical Technikieta mode. They both submitted these in their own names, or to be more accurate, Nick submitted them within a minute of each other but Nick's is signed by Nick and Kayla's is signed by Kayla. They obviously both decided simultaneously that they were in an entirely different county, since they totally drafted these themselves, with Nick merely giving helpful advice.
There's absolutely no ethical issue here, move along.
changing judges is not a minor point of strategy. It would be especially important if, say, Kayla were to decide that her interests do not match that of Nick- the dumbass who has done things to piss off the judge in question.
I was thinking more in terms of Nick and Kayla doing nothing to manage it being an indication of neglect. Just as there's an expectation that you will seek medical help for a child's physical illnesses, it's a reasonable expectation that you will seek help for their behavioural issues.
I almost think it would be better to try and challenge Fischer not using the rule that applies in 7 days. IIRC she was the one who signed the warrant and so if she had to recuse herself after being challenged it would make it easier to challenge the warrant.
That is the next interesting thing in this case I think. Part of the problem is that there is no one to protest about Nick basically writing her Pro-Se filings. I think the prosecution can and will eventually do it. But the court can't just simply decide that this is improper all on its own. The Prosecution has to be the one to do it or Kayla has to but I don't think she will. Eventually this issue will be challenged if Nick continues to do this and has the same lawyer representing both of them.
I see your point and agree entirely but I wouldn't use that trial as an example.
If there is anything this move shows, Rekieta is absolutely going to fight this. A plea deal and bartering it down would be done mostly with the prosecutor as far as I know. I cannot really see a good reason to get a different judge unless he wants a less hostile one when he fight the charges.
Noted by other kiwis but, still pro se, totally wrong county. A man that represents himself has a fool for a client.
Barnes is too busy? To proofread even?
Hell even running it through a chat bot would have caught the entirely wrong county.
Since it’s such a small county, there’s a good chance that Rekieta has personal experience with this vagina-wielding judge also.
I was hoping there would be slightly more fireworks from the judge he cornered in an elevator and publicly insulted multiple times
What I don't understand about this argument is that it leads to an absurd conclusion that one could slander as many judges as they like until there are none left or they find a particularly favourable one. This doesn't stand to reason. I imagine there would have to be evidence that Nick's comments have caused bias, such as the judge referencing them or having a significant change in demeanour towards the defendant after they've been said. Judges get called shit all the time, they're trained to deal with it, and this was fairly tame compared to the death or rape threats they might ordinarily receive.
As stated earlier ITT this argument appears to be moot as it seems a defendant's first motion to change judges will usually be granted for any or no reason.
It's very likely that whomever "owns" the bond (don't know the exact term) has conditions, but it's likely that these conditions are vastly more lenient than whatever the court offers, otherwise they're kinda pointless.
I don't have mod powers over this section, but I don't think so. He just really doesn't post here
The bond is unconditional
lmao what the fuck?
Even on the gun charges, that depends. The report said they were unsecured, no locks on the rifle in the bedroom. Can't do that in Minnesota. We and Nick can bitch about it, but it's the law. Also was in a house with drugs. Can't do that either. That's two strikes. A shrewd prosecuter would say they were unsecured around children if he wants to play hard ball. That's a third strike.
I agree, it is a decision that she should have her own legal advice from her own lawyer who's not conflicted. But if they both, after getting legal advice independently, decide to pull the lever, it'd make economical sense for the lawyers to confer and then have one person do a fast copy-n-paste job for both of them rather than two different lawyers file two nearly identical things separately.
They do still have to remain law-abiding. If she sticks to drinking and legal gummies, she'd be alright.
