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

[Watching Rekieta]

Bet big money it's black tar heroin.

Naah. Their presumptive tests likely hit all the common/felony narcotics. Fentanyl, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. There are some new opioids out like nitazenes that might not hit but I'd be surprised if the test didn't hit heroin.

I am surprised there aren't pics with Nick and blown pupils with the amount of coke he was taking. Also real surprised the traffic stop they did for the warrant didn't trigger a DUI investigation. I almost think they waited for him to drive for that very reason. His two speeding tickets didn't trigger DUI investigations either. He's either real lucky or real careful.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

His two speeding tickets didn't trigger DUI investigations either. He's either real lucky or real careful.

I also wonder if some type of "professional courtesy" along with the cop realizing that this non-practicing attorney with a bad attitude will just create a lot of hassle and wasted time in a traffic courtroom. Cops hate having to spend all day in court.

edit to add: Not rolling down that window suggests that the odor of whiskey and/or weed may have been present. Nick avoiding 'probable cause'.

 

[Angry Shoes]

What’s your thoughts on the brown substance? I’m not 100 on it being “brown brown” but that theory seems to hold the most water.

MDMA is often tan or light brown. That would be my guess.

 

[Thomas Talus]

I'm not sure who keeps stats specifically on this, and am not going to go on a Shepardizing deep dive on it, but Brady violations seem to be one of the more common forms of prosecutorial misconduct that lead to successful appeals. Hence, prosecutors generally take this seriously, or fail to do so at their peril.

I would actually say "left and right" when it happens, because most prosecutors now know this is a way to get your pee-pee smacked hard. So they don't do it.

I recall that a while back in CA, Brady violations seemed to be a part of the statewide/federal prosecutorial culture, to the extent that Kozinski declared it an epidemic. A panel from the 9th later even threatened to call AG Harris into court to answer for the widespread practice of failure to disclose compensation of jailhouse snitches.

 

[Swerf'n'Terf]

Can someone tell me what exactly happens in the omnibus hearing? It’s not the start of the trial right?

You're correct, it's a mandatory pre-trial hearing in which the judge will consider a range of issues relating to motions filed by either side. Here's a generic list of examples from a firm in MN:

• Probable cause;
• Evidentiary questions;
• Exchange of discovery;
• Admissibility of prior bad acts of the accused;
• Admissibility of prior sexual conduct, if applicable;
• Issues of Constitutional rights;
• Admissibility of relationship evidence, if applicable;
• Procedural problems;
• Aggravated sentencing considerations; and
• Any other issue that the court must resolve to ensure a fair trial.

Essentially establishing ground rules and screening for obvious error before proceeding further. So far Nick's lawyer seems pugnacious and like he might make multiple challenges on most of the above.

'Admissibility of prior bad acts of the accused' is a fun wildcard. On the one hand this very much depends on the State to introduce, and it's not clear they have any reason to do so at this point. On the other hand Nick has a couple months yet to act the tard baby and has been streaming his own adverse statements for years. It's only a prospect at this point but we can hope.

 

[AnOminous]

Naah. Their presumptive tests likely hit all the common/felony narcotics. Fentanyl, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. There are some new opioids out like nitazenes that might not hit but I'd be surprised if the test didn't hit heroin.

They'll probably do more in-depth tests once they have custody of the substances. After all, the presumptive field tests are sometimes wrong or identify one thing as another, especially if they're closely related. Also in an actual lab, they might have tests for weird Shulgin phenethylamine research chemicals that they don't have in a field test. Or send it to a state lab, or possibly even the feds if they think it's important.

All we really know now is it probably isn't any of the things in the field kit, which means it's probably kratom, some oddball RC from some darknet market, or possibly pure bunk.

 

[sallowhal]

MDMA is often tan or light brown. That would be my guess.

good guess. it can be a crystal of any color, but the really good stuff looks like wet brown sugar and smells like liquorice. i imagine rackets would be buying the good stuff

 

[Harm]

MDMA is often tan or light brown. That would be my guess.

Aaron said their MDMA was never brown, but it's possible their latest batch was brown.

 

[Al from Dadeville]

I only remember "brown substance" being the only descriptor.

Be funny if it was just shitty dirt weed

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Be funny if it was just shitty dirt weed

Be funnier if it was just brown sugar and plaster that Nick paid a fuck ton for.

 

[Harvey Danger]

They'll probably do more in-depth tests once they have custody of the substances. After all, the presumptive field tests are sometimes wrong or identify one thing as another, especially if they're closely related. Also in an actual lab, they might have tests for weird Shulgin phenethylamine research chemicals that they don't have in a field test. Or send it to a state lab, or possibly even the feds if they think it's important.

I figured they would, and I'm wondering how long that should take. If it was something illicit, shouldn't we have seen an added charge by now? Or would it be added to the 26 gram amount under the original charge?

If it's nothing serious I'd expect such a report to turn up in evidence turned over to the defense, eventually.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Be funnier if it was just brown sugar and plaster that Nick paid a fuck ton for.

This is my pet theory for the brown stuff. Nick was sold shit, and but his guy told him it shinola.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

If it's nothing serious I'd expect such a report to turn up in evidence turned over to the defense, eventually.

If it's nothing there would be no follow up, because it's nothing. Imagine if cops had to note everything that looked potentially illicit but turned out harmless.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Think about who we are talking about here.

The brown substance is clearly a coke booger.

 

[moocow]

I have a normal question. Are you retarded?

fuckin' lol ... this should be a question on the KF signup page. Or maybe a tickbox: [ ] I am 18 years of age or older. [ ] I am not retarded.

 

[AnOminous]

I figured they would, and I'm wondering how long that should take. If it was something illicit, shouldn't we have seen an added charge by now? Or would it be added to the 26 gram amount under the original charge?

It depends. They might be backed up on testing, especially for esoteric shit. I don't see someone putting something in a safe unless it's really expensive, really illegal, or both, or they at least think that. So whatever it is, he probably paid a lot of money for it. It would be funny if it was just a total ripoff because Nick's face basically screams "easy mark."

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

MDMA is often tan or light brown. That would be my guess.

Field tests can (mostly) test for MDMA. So it's either a non common drug, fake, or something mixed that has changed the formula of the active ingredient to not react to the field test (unlikely). We won't know until the filing is updated. They'll need to run gas spect or NMR on it to confirm. Until that is updated it is and will remain speculation. Even then we might not know if the the compound is sufficently degraded, or weird that it eludes the technican's analysis skills.

If it's nothing there would be no follow up, because it's nothing. Imagine if cops had to note everything that looked potentially illicit but turned out harmless.

@AnOminous Can prosecution "hold out" on this? Like "oh yeah, we figured out this brown shit is X illegal drug, but we'll drop this silently if you cooperate with us for the (not so nice) plea deal instead of fighting a full on jury trial where we ram you a new asshole?"

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous Can prosecution "hold out" on this? Like "oh yeah, we figured out this brown shit is X illegal drug, but we'll drop this silently if you cooperate with us for the (not so nice) plea deal instead of fighting a full on jury trial where we ram you a new asshole?"

Can they? They can do all kinds of illegal shit. It's more a question of whether they can get away with it. If it's just "we'll bring these additional charges and here's our deal," probably okay. If they just conceal it, though, that's questionable. It's not really Brady material, because something that makes the defendant look EVEN WORSE is not exculpatory.

I honestly don't know. This is one of those "ask a criminal lawyer (not a CRIMINAL lawyer like Nick) in Minnesota" questions.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

They'll probably do more in-depth tests once they have custody of the substances.

All we really know now is it probably isn't any of the things in the field kit, which means it's probably kratom, some oddball RC from some darknet market, or possibly pure bunk.

If it's nothing there would be no follow up, because it's nothing. Imagine if cops had to note everything that looked potentially illicit but turned out harmless.

It depends. They might be backed up on testing, especially for esoteric shit. I don't see someone putting something in a safe unless it's really expensive, really illegal, or both, or they at least think that. So whatever it is, he probably paid a lot of money for it. It would be funny if it was just a total ripoff because Nick's face basically screams "easy mark."

The detective seems pretty good. All the PC statements in the warrants were tied back to direct observations when it was executed. He wove a story that had no loose ends. Things like "needle tracks" from witness turned into meth sores by DRE. "dirty smelly" kids observation became "dirty smelly kids wanting clean clothes" at the scene. He's the cop that never asks a question he doesn't already know the answer.

I suspect the detective didn't just tag random "brown substance." He knows exactly what it is from knowledge and experience. He knows the holes in the presumptive tests. He called it out because he knows it will strengthen his case. I could be wrong but nothing he's done so far has been a fishing expedition where he didn't know what he was going to find. It would be funny if it did tie in the "empty casing" observation.

 

[AnOminous]

I suspect the detective didn't just tag random "brown substance." He knows exactly what it is from knowledge and experience. He knows the holes in the presumptive tests. He called it out because he knows it will strengthen his case. I could be wrong but nothing he's done so far has been a fishing expedition where he didn't know what he was going to find. It would be funny if it did tie in the "empty casing" observation.

"Just one more thing. . ." Columbo