The potential legal arguments that Nick has been hinting at are bad, but I just wanted to highlight how bad they are. They are so bad that even a layman could rip these things to shreds, never mind a public prosecutor that must see this nonsense every day of the week.
The first is the felony drug possession charges, Nick hinted while on Chrissie Meyer's podcast that the state had to prove
knowledge and
intent to possess the drugs. This is not true - while they do have to prove knowledge they do not have to prove intent. So really his argument is that the state have to prove he had
knowledge that there were drugs present within the master bedroom in which he and Kayla (and April) resided.
Is it possible that Nick, Kayla and April never knew they had coke in the safe? Yes, but the reality is that the context would make it unreasonable to conclude they were not aware of its presence. Given the presence of drug paraphernalia, evidence they were actively using the drugs, drug residue throughout the bedroom indicating active use and presumably no evidence anyone else had been using the room, it is delusional to think any judge or jury would not conclude they were aware of the presence of drugs.
Now it is worth saying that they could present evidence to support their claim, for instance if they could prove someone else had access to that safe, and prove they had placed the item in there without their knowledge and perhaps show a lack of supporting evidence (i.e a lack of fingerprints on the packaging) their might be a way to cast doubt on them knowing it was there. This is really grasping at straws though, it still wouldn't explain the drug residue throughout the house. He seemed to hint that it was the cops or even Aaron that left the drugs there, or at least opened up the possibility to it - but given body cameras, and the fact Aaron wasn't there for 6 weeks prior to the arrest, this is a fucking stupid thing to even hint at.
Ultimately, far from having their work cut out proving Nick knew he had drugs in his room, the police have a slam dunk.
The Child Endangerment crime also seems somewhat cut and dry.
One thing I noted is that he said to Chrissie Meyer that they will always remove kids form a home when they are found near drugs, because this falls under the definition of Child Endangerment. This is true, but I want to caveat that I believe this could actually be Nick trying to cover his ass. The statute states the following:
"knowingly causing or permitting the child to be present where any person is... possessing a controlled substance, as defined in section 152.01, subdivision 4, in violation of section 152.021, 152.022, 152.023, 152.024, or 152.0262; is guilty of child endangerment"
This allows Nick to explain why his kids were removed, without having to admit any of the other parts of this statute were the cause of child endangerment - rather than the deprivation of basic things like food. The question I have is what is meant by the child being present - does it mean within the same room, the same household, nearby? It is unclear, I presume this would be more of a caselaw issue.
Obviously trying to get the positive drug test thrown out is the biggie for this one, although that does not get them in the clear either, but everything Nick has said regarding that is nonsense.
First, his claim that there were no medical records of the child going to the hospital for ingesting cocaine is laughable - she would only go to the hospital if you took her Nick.
Then this environmental claim - it is not entirely wrong that there may be ways that did not involve the child ingesting cocaine in the usual way, that lead to it getting in their hair follicles. However, there are problems with this - why does the shared environment not have a shared effect on all the kids? What was Nick doing to create an environment where a child could inadvertently ingest so much cocaine? Whichever way you skin this cat, the results are the same - the Rekietas created an unsafe environment and allowed their child to be present in it.
There is also a second scenario here, which for Nick's sake I hope is what is actually going on - Nick is preparing the groundwork for a plea deal. I am a law abiding citizen, so I have no idea how all this works - but presumably for a good plea you need to have some leverage, and therefore posturing that you are going to take the issue to court would be in your favour up to a certain point?
What makes me doubt this is that Nick is acting like a belligerent know it all, and that it would not make sense to air all of this in public if this was your strategy - why give away the lines of argument you are exploring ahead of any potential trial. If I was the prosecution I would be noting down all of what he is hinting at and preparing to hang this nigga out to dry.
