- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
Could be. I don't know if the cannabis case was b1 or b2 (Nick was charged under b2, but b1 reads more broadly). Here, they wouldn't have known drug test results at the time of charging, and there's nothing we've seen that indicated anyone had suggested the children appeared to be on drugs. Still odd they were charged differently, though.
Another article on that cannabis case I read mentioned two charges, but I didn't see anything in either article saying what the other was. Could maybe have been neglect under (a)(1), or two incidents of endangerment, idk. a1 reads:
I do note that under (b)(2), the statue Nick was charged under,
They could amend charges to felony^ level of there is anything to the coke test results, I would think.
They also haven't (yet) added anything under (c), which is about kids' access to loaded firearms. I know he said it was secured/under lock, but iirc, the police said differently. So who knows.
...
It is interesting, though, that the definitions of neglect, physical abuse, etc., in the child protection statute, for the purposes of CPS investigation/ handling, are much more specific and robust than the criminal statute*, though I suspect when they assess "willfully deprives a child of necessary food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision appropriate to the child's age" in a1, or "physical abuse" in b2, they might refer to acts/situations that meet the CPS definition to support a neglect or endangerment criminal charge.
*In the child protection statute (definitions in 206E.03), subdivision 18(c)(9), which defines "physical abuse," covers giving a kid drugs. And the arrest papers included statements that seem potentially aligned at least to subsection 1, 3, 4, and 7 of subdivision 15, which defines "neglect" for purposes of child protective services assessments. Which suggests to me that everything in this case was done very thoroughly and thoughtfully, with an eye on both criminal and child protective concerns. I could be wrong, but this police department does not seem to be a slapdash or amateur outfit.
Bc picking at the edges to discredit "the other guy"/ "the Man" has nothing directly to do with his actual actions (or actual guilt or innocence).
Anything about his own actions gets into an area he's hoping never to have to address directly, and he is right not to risk saying something he might want to say or assert differently about his own actions in the future.
Worst (and unlikely, but no one knows yet) case, there's a trial. If he starts talking about what he did or didn't do, says too much, makes some kind of admission, he could risk having his words brought into evidence. (Iirc, Admissions against interest by a criminal defendant can be admissible as evidence if the declarant was aware at the time of the statement that it was against his penal, the truth of the statement is corroborated by non-hearsay evidence, and the declarant is "unavailable to testify," which includes exercising his right not to testify. See MN Rules of Evidence Rule 804b3 and the commentary.). Criminal defendants may have any number of reasons not to want to testify, and doing so puts them in a dangerous position, because if they do that the cannot "plead the Fifth" or otherwise refuse examination by the prosecution, so if a statement they made that is against their interest and they do not want to testify, they run a risk of another brick in the wall.
...theoretically. Can't really see that becoming a thing for the drug charge if the warrant survives challenge (though you never know). But unlike the drug charge, the endangerment charge (as it exists now or if others are added) could be a little stickier and more subjective than the drug charge. So he really wants to stay away from any discussion of anything about his actions or things at home.
More practically/likely, any sort of comment or admission about his actions could potentially harm leverage in a negotiation for a deal later.
You just don't want to cut off or damage any possible strategy or assertion later or risk having your words used against you.
![Legal Mindset - The Disastrous Return of Rekieta Law (LIVE) [q55q6CIcTps - 2224x1251 - 1h13m22s].png](http://uploads.kiwifarms.st/data/attachments/6092/6092540-66c89a7f29a5ee200922e7bbc4ab475f.jpg?hash=Zsiafyml7i "Legal Mindset - The Disastrous Return of Rekieta Law (LIVE) [q55q6CIcTps - 2224x1251 - 1h13m22s].png")
