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

[mindlessobserver]

has anyone volunteered to be the court room artist to show the images of rekieta and his balldo during the hearing?

I feel like the idioctracy court room sketches will work better.


Balldo man tries to explain his case with fancy words. Comes across as a faggot



Judge and Jury are all like "look at this queer.


Then the Prosecutor jumps up and POW. Puts that little bitch in his place. Fo real.


Then the Judge goes hulk mode at the child abusing soft dick!


Guilty! Guilty forever! Take him out back and have him shot! And the court room is all HELL YEAH!

 

[FamicomGorby]

I am surprised how much I enjoyed Kurt’s review of Nick’s attempts to render April’s statements inadmissible. The “Get fucked! Get fucked!” parts were especially lulzy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Kurt having this much fun:

Good overview, can't believe Nick is actually arguing that the drunk pill stream can't be used against him because he privated the original video.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

can't believe Nick is actually arguing that the drunk pill stream can't be used against him because he privated the original video.

I can. Nick is a goddamn moron. You love to see it.

 

[Lubby Smith]

Nick's motion "asks the Court to declare April Imholte’s statements made to law enforcement, following her invocation of her Miranda rights, to be inadmissible in Defendant’s case . . . unless April Imholte testifies at trial and is subject to confrontation" and cites the bodycam recordings of Deputies Braness and Pumplun, both of whom Nick subpoenaed.

To determine whether her statements are testimonial and, therefore, subject to the confrontation clause, you'd think the judge would need to see the bodycam footage that's cited in the motion.

Section 13.82(7):

Advisory Opinion 22-003:

Seems pretty straightforward that any footage put in evidence at the omnibus hearing is public, meaning we get it.

Also, I'm sure it won't happen, but let's hope the prosecutor decides to alog Nick by moving for the entirety of both bodycams to be entered into evidence under THE RULE OF COMPLETENESS that Nick threw a hissy fit about at the CPS hearing.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

I think Nick's probably delusional if he thinks this guy is going to give him anything useful, and it would have to be something that wasn't in his filing

Good overview, can't believe Nick is actually arguing that the drunk pill stream can't be used against him because he privated the original video.

I really think Nick wants to have a 'gotcha' where he asks if it is true that he LIED about seeing the original video. Some version of nonsense like that.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I really think Nick wants to have a 'gotcha' where he asks if it is true that he LIED about seeing the original video. Some version of nonsense like that.

If so it betrays how much of an amateur he is.

The 'Gotchas' never happen.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

The 'Gotchas' never happen.

He watched "Suits" too many times

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

I am surprised how much I enjoyed Kurt’s review of Nick’s attempts to render April’s statements inadmissible. The “Get fucked! Get fucked!” parts were especially lulzy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Kurt having this much fun:

Kurt's like a jilted ex-lover. His autism compells him to the anger and hatred and I must laugh.

I really think Nick wants to have a 'gotcha' where he asks if it is true that he LIED about seeing the original video. Some version of nonsense like that.

That's a classic Ralphamale W at this rate. I can't wait for the state to subpoena google/rumble and introduce the original into evidence.

If so it betrays how much of an amateur he is.

The 'Gotchas' never happen.

Nick needs (more) new lies to cover previous lies he made. Unfortunately that doesn't always work in a court of law. I expect his next cope will be the BCA isn't reliable and fucked up the test. Which means they're gonna call in the person who did the test and their supervisors for the trial and thus pissing off more people in the process.

Nick's motion "asks the Court to declare April Imholte’s statements made to law enforcement,

I'm going to quote what I wrote on the main thread. Nick's suppression of April's statement is the only thing I see being ruled favorably upon. Is that motion premature though? He should have argued only to suppress anything if she doesn't get confronted.
Even then, Berghuis v. Thompkins says you can waive your 5th amendment right and that is not clear until we see the footage. Just because they say shit, doesn't mean you have to reply...

 

[SargonF00t]

I am surprised how much I enjoyed Kurt’s review of Nick’s attempts to render April’s statements inadmissible. The “Get fucked! Get fucked!” parts were especially lulzy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Kurt having this much fun:

I watched the whole 90 minute video from Kurt's channel and thought it was an excellent takedown of Nick's legal idiocy but I couldn't help but wonder if before making the video that Kurt had been snubbed by Rekieta?

Afterall, this was the guy crying about his friend's predicament when Rekieta got busted and now he seems delighted to tear apart Nick's legal approach here.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

I watched the whole 90 minute video from Kurt's channel and thought it was an excellent takedown of Nick's legal idiocy but I couldn't help but wonder if before making the video that Kurt had been snubbed by Rekieta?

Afterall, this was the guy crying about his friend's predicament when Rekieta got busted and now he seems delighted to tear apart Nick's legal approach here.

Yes, he was snubbed by Crackieta saying something along the lines of "Kurt's an autist and I humor him only to futher my goals" in the Discord leaks.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Nick's suppression of April's statement is the only thing I see being ruled favorably upon.

How is Nick going to be allowed to invoke a third party’s rights?

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

How is Nick going to be allowed to invoke a third party’s rights?

What I'm saying is that he has a legal argument there (if it wasn't HIM filing the motion). I think he should've argued the confrontation clause thing only, and waited until later to suppress if they brought her as a witness. Putting the muh Miranda argument now seems premature if at all applicable.

 

[Owlbear]

What I'm saying is that he has a legal argument there (if it wasn't HIM filing the motion). I think he should've argued the confrontation clause thing only, and waited until later to suppress if they brought her as a witness. Putting the muh Miranda argument now seems premature if at all applicable.

The problem is that the state doesn't need her testimony if the warrant is okay. From the warrant, they get the coke in the safe next to the guns and they have the coked-up kid. Rekieta needs to get the warrant thrown out if he wants to beat this so he's throwing everything he can at the wall to see if anything sticks.

 

[AnOminous]

Seems pretty straightforward that any footage put in evidence at the omnibus hearing is public, meaning we get it.

Also, I'm sure it won't happen, but let's hope the prosecutor decides to alog Nick by moving for the entirety of both bodycams to be entered into evidence under THE RULE OF COMPLETENESS that Nick threw a hissy fit about at the CPS hearing.

Bodycam footage of April should probably not be admissable if the purpose is to argue that what April said was true and use it against someone who can't cross examine her over it.

The bodycam footage of the home itself serves an entirely different purpose. It would also be evidence in this particular hearing, even if it's not admissable at trial for whatever reason. I'm not sure if they're even going to submit it, though. Maybe Nick should insist on that, which would be funny after his tantrum over it.

I think he should've argued the confrontation clause thing only, and waited until later to suppress if they brought her as a witness. Putting the muh Miranda argument now seems premature if at all applicable.

This indeed. That extraneous and rather silly argument just muddied the waters. They practically buried the hearsay argument under it.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

Yes, he was snubbed by Crackieta saying something along the lines of "Kurt's an autist and I humor him only to futher my goals" in the Discord leaks.

The what now?

 

[Lubby Smith]

What I'm saying is that he has a legal argument there (if it wasn't HIM filing the motion). I think he should've argued the confrontation clause thing only, and waited until later to suppress if they brought her as a witness. Putting the muh Miranda argument now seems premature if at all applicable.

The reason he put in the Miranda stuff isn't to try to get her statement suppressed. He didn't ask the court to suppress her statement. It's there because there's only a confrontation issue if her statement is testimonial, and that factors into the analysis.

I think he should've made the motion to suppress in this motion rather than waiting. It's an issue that can be resolved pretrial, and this isn't going to be a weeks-long ordeal. Having a suppression hearing in the middle of a 2 day trial and forcing the judge to rule basically on the fly is not ideal.

The problem is that a defendant doesn't have standing to assert violation of a third party's right against self incrimination. However, a defendant can move to suppress on grounds that the use of a third party's statement would violate his own due process right to a fair trial if the third party's statement was coerced or came by way of torture or something extreme like that.

 

[AnOminous]

The problem is that a defendant doesn't have standing to assert violation of a third party's right against self incrimination. However, a defendant can move to suppress on grounds that the use of a third party's statement would violate his own due process right to a fair trial if the third party's statement was coerced or came by way of torture or something extreme like that.

If it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that what April said proves Nick is guilty (in this case effectively the same as being testimonial), it's hearsay. It wasn't under oath and April is unlikely to be available for cross examination (unless she cuts a deal and agrees to testify against Nick). Nick couldn't actually force her to testify if she's still facing charges.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Yes, he was snubbed by Crackieta saying something along the lines of "Kurt's an autist and I humor him only to futher my goals" in the Discord leaks.

It's easier to count the lawyers that aren't autists to some degree than the ones who are.

 

[waffle]

Is it? @AnOminous or @waffle or @Sheryl Nome ? Isn’t witness tampering only if you influence a witnesses testimony? IANAL which is why I @ Null to ask his lawyers.

If so then don’t show him shit and ask if he would be willing to sign a release of the body cam and if someone else in the department is willing to sign a release.

I'm not seeing how that's witness tampering, informing a person of facts that are true and they would likely like to know are not witness tampering. In MN it looks like you've pretty much got to threaten, harass, coerce, or intimidate somebody into changing or refusing to testify.

609.498 TAMPERING WITH WITNESS.​

Subdivision 1.Tampering with witness in the first degree.​

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of tampering with a witness in the first degree and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 1a:
(a) intentionally prevents or dissuades or intentionally attempts to prevent or dissuade by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, a person who is or may become a witness from attending or testifying at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;
(b) by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, intentionally coerces or attempts to coerce a person who is or may become a witness to testify falsely at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;
(c) intentionally causes injury or threatens to cause injury to any person or property in retaliation against a person who was summoned as a witness at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, within a year following that trial, proceeding, or inquiry or within a year following the actor's release from incarceration, whichever is later;
(d) intentionally prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade, by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, a person from providing information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime;
(e) by means of force or threats of injury to any person or property, intentionally coerces or attempts to coerce a person to provide false information concerning a crime to law enforcement authorities; or
(f) intentionally causes injury or threatens to cause injury to any person or property in retaliation against a person who has provided information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime within a year of that person providing the information or within a year of the actor's release from incarceration, whichever is later.

Subd. 1a.Penalty.​

Whoever violates subdivision 1 may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine not to exceed $10,000.

Subd. 1b.Aggravated first-degree witness tampering.​

(a) A person is guilty of aggravated first-degree witness tampering if the person causes or, by means of an implicit or explicit credible threat, threatens to cause great bodily harm or death to another in the course of committing any of the following acts intentionally:
(1) preventing or dissuading or attempting to prevent or dissuade a person who is or may become a witness from attending or testifying at any criminal trial or proceeding;
(2) coercing or attempting to coerce a person who is or may become a witness to testify falsely at any criminal trial or proceeding;
(3) retaliating against a person who was summoned as a witness at any criminal trial or proceeding within a year following that trial or proceeding or within a year following the actor's release from incarceration, whichever is later;
(4) preventing or dissuading or attempting to prevent or dissuade a person from providing information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime;
(5) coercing or attempting to coerce a person to provide false information concerning a crime to law enforcement authorities; or
(6) retaliating against any person who has provided information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime within a year of that person providing the information or within a year of the actor's release from incarceration, whichever is later.
(b) A person convicted of committing any act prohibited by paragraph (a) may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

Subd. 2.Tampering with a witness in the second degree.​

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of tampering with a witness in the second degree and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:
(a) intentionally prevents or dissuades or intentionally attempts to prevent or dissuade by means of any act described in section 609.27, subdivision 1, clause (3), (4), or (5), a person who is or may become a witness from attending or testifying at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;
(b) by means of any act described in section 609.27, subdivision 1, clause (3), (4), or (5), intentionally coerces or attempts to coerce a person who is or may become a witness to testify falsely at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;
(c) intentionally prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade by means of any act described in section 609.27, subdivision 1, clause (3), (4), or (5), a person from providing information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime; or
(d) by means of any act described in section 609.27, subdivision 1, clause (3), (4), or (5), intentionally coerces or attempts to coerce a person to provide false information concerning a crime to law enforcement authorities.

Subd. 2a.Tampering with a witness in the third degree.​

(a) Unless a greater penalty is applicable under subdivision 1, 1b, or 2, whoever does any of the following is guilty of tampering with a witness in the third degree and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:
(1) intentionally prevents or dissuades or intentionally attempts to prevent or dissuade by means of intimidation, a person who is or may become a witness from attending or testifying at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;
(2) by means of intimidation, intentionally influences or attempts to influence a person who is or may become a witness to testify falsely at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law;
(3) intentionally prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade by means of intimidation, a person from providing information to law enforcement authorities concerning a crime; or
(4) by means of intimidation, intentionally influences or attempts to influence a person to provide false information concerning a crime to law enforcement authorities.
(b) In a prosecution under this subdivision, proof of intimidation may be based on a specific act or on the totality of the circumstances.

Subd. 3.Sentence.​

(a) Whoever violates subdivision 2 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever violates subdivision 2a is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Subd. 4.No bar to conviction.​

Notwithstanding section 609.035 or 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction of the crime of aggravated first-degree witness tampering is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime.

​

 

[Lubby Smith]

If it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that what April said proves Nick is guilty (in this case effectively the same as being testimonial), it's hearsay. It wasn't under oath and April is unlikely to be available for cross examination (unless she cuts a deal and agrees to testify against Nick). Nick couldn't actually force her to testify if she's still facing charges.

Yeah, I was explaining the only possible way I can see to have her statement suppressed, albeit one that's highly unlikely to be successful. I would've tried anyways because if you can get a statement suppressed, then you avoid all the complexities of codefendants, admissions, and the confrontation clause.

It's all academic, though, because this is an open and shut case that doesn't need her statement and has no business going to trial. Hopefully she said some real embarrassing shit that Nick wants to keep under wraps but winds up getting bodycam released because of his genius legal maneuvers.