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

[Clem Fandango]

If he wants to take a deal, doesn't he have to plead guilty? I just can't see him ever admitting wrongdoing, so how can he take the deal?

 

[Bill Evans 45]

On the outside chance he gets some time in lock up, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when it goes around that he's a lawyer. There's gonna be an endless line of mouth breathing no hopers begging him to look at their cases at association, some of whom will take it very badly if he refuses.

 

[Dumpster dived waifu]

On the outside chance he gets some time in lock up, I'd love to be a fly on the wall when it goes around that he's a lawyer. There's gonna be an endless line of mouth breathing no hopers begging him to look at their cases at association, some of whom will take it very badly if he refuses.

Now, I'm just a humble retard shitposter, not some big brain prison rat, but I'm not sure I'd trust a lawyer that got sent to prison. A good lawyer, would have avoided prison.

 

[Owlbear]

If he wants to take a deal, doesn't he have to plead guilty? I just can't see him ever admitting wrongdoing, so how can he take the deal?

In some instances you can plead "no contest," like when there's a civil case (eg a traffic violation that caused a car crash) and you don't want to give evidence in that trial. Otherwise, you're pleading guilty.

 

[Autistic Integrity]

If he wants to take a deal, doesn't he have to plead guilty? I just can't see him ever admitting wrongdoing, so how can he take the deal?

Typically a nolo contendere plea.

Nolo contendere means "no contest." This phrase translates from the Latin as "I do not wish to contend."

In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which the defendant does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but waives the right to a trial and agrees to accept the penalty.

The plea differs from a guilty plea because a "no contest" plea cannot be used against the defendant in another cause of action.

 

[Clem Fandango]

Typically a nolo contendere plea.

Nolo contendere means "no contest." This phrase translates from the Latin as "I do not wish to contend."

In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may enter a plea of nolo contendere, in which the defendant does not accept or deny responsibility for the charges but waives the right to a trial and agrees to accept the penalty.

The plea differs from a guilty plea because a "no contest" plea cannot be used against the defendant in another cause of action.

Ahh, the "Ralph manoeuvre". OK, if that's on the table then I guess he will probably avoid actual jail time.

 

[Autistic Integrity]

Ahh, the "Ralph manoeuvre". OK, if that's on the table then I guess he will probably avoid actual jail time.

lol people still do time pleading no contest. it prevents you from automatically being liable to civil action is what the end means.

 

[Lubby Smith]

The sentencing guidelines are what will spare him prison time.

What is the difference between taking a plea deal now, or losing in court in 6 months time?

The possibility of paying the "trial tax."

The guidelines allow the judge to give up to 364 days in jail as a condition of the suspended sentence, and each gross misdemeanor carries up to 364 days in jails as well.

If he takes any kind of deal, the chance of being sentenced to jail/prison is negligible. But if he wastes everyone's time at trial, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the judge gave him 30, 60, or 90 days in jail, which would be legitimately justified by lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility.

The well-oiled criminal justice machine would grind to a halt if defendants took everything to trial. And they would, if they could safely bank on getting the same punishment after a guilty verdict that they would've received from a guilty plea. The trial tax is the court's way of making sure that doesn't happen. The judge knows this and so does Nick.

 

[Thomas Talus]

If you take a plea deal you can't appeal (at least in my state it is part of the agreement)
Edit to add stuff in parentheses

In my state you can appeal, but only to allege that the sentence handed down is unconstitutional.

Some DA's offices have a policy to require a guilty plea for there to be a plea deal.

 

[Autistic Integrity]

In my state you can appeal, but only to allege that the sentence handed down is unconstitutional.

Some DA's offices have a policy to require a guilty plea for there to be a plea deal.

interesting considering you AGREED to the penalty and agreed that you consulted an attorney about it and agreed that you were were informed about the maximum penalties when signing it.

 

[Thomas Talus]

interesting considering you AGREED to the penalty and agreed that you consulted an attorney about it and agreed that you were were informed about the maximum penalties when signing it.

Your agreement is with the DA, not with the judge. The judge informs the defendant, prior to accepting the plea, that they are not bound to follow the sentence laid out in the plea deal. The exception is there so a judge can't accept a plea offer, throw down a life sentence on a disorderly conduct charge, and say "lol, no appeals."

 

[Autistic Integrity]

Your agreement is with the DA, not with the judge. The judge informs the defendant, prior to accepting the plea, that they are not bound to follow the sentence laid out in the plea deal. The exception is there so a judge can't accept a plea offer, throw down a life sentence on a disorderly conduct charge, and say "lol, no appeals."

i assumed this is why you agree that you were informed to the maximum possible sentence for the crime.
it probably gets interesting if sentencing guidelines change in statutes though i didn't think that could retroactively affect it.

 

[AnOminous]

I suspect at this point he is fucked. There's always a chance they may offer one last plea deal at juror selection.

I think it's very likely we see one after either the Franks hearing or the denial of the Franks hearing and the motion to suppress. At that point, the writing will really be on the wall as to how fucked Nick is. If they don't offer a deal at all they're probably very confident. Even if they do, if it's a bad deal involving even brief incarceration, they're also confident.

Still, don't be surprised that even if it turns out well for the prosecution, they still offer some relatively normal deal with a suspended sentence or deferred adjudication of some sort. People do way worse than being obnoxious dicks and challenging arrest warrants or filing a motion to suppress and still get deals.

If anything, the most likely reason they just say fuck this specific guy is what has the appearance of multiple attempts at witness intimidation. Even if Ralph did that on his lonesome, or at least based on no explicit requests by Nick that they can prove, it's bound to have created a bad impression. They're not supposed to base their actions on unproven stuff like that but they're human and some things just leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Having to deal with a piece of shit like Rekieta is one of those things.

I'm sure Kiwi Farms, a website, could helpfully file an amicus curiae brief with the relevant visual aids to explain things to the court.

Or considering it's Balldo, just some pictures of him. You know, visible AIDS.

He absolutely is. I still hold that the man is very clearly gearing up for a full battle in the courts. I additionally hold the only reason some people here are believing he won't is because everyone with a functioning brain sees that is a terrible idea and so they are believing it cannot occur for that reason.

He may literally do it BECAUSE people are saying how stupid it would be. Because, you know, we're saying it in a faggy way.

This was a well put response by the state. The only thing I don't fully know about is the firearms. But if they were out in the open by drugs? Open and shut confiscate.
If they were locked up in a safe?
Different story. Sounds like to me they were out in the open, which is extra fucked.

I'm not absolutely certain about everything. I believe one of the guns was under the bed. But the plain sight doctrine does not necessarily mean it's sitting right out in the open, just that in the course of a search for drugs, without police misconduct, they would have seen it and it would obviously on its face be evidence of a crime.

Even if it somehow was the fruit of actual misconduct, though, the inevitable discovery doctrine is an exception to that rule, which is that even if the search that uncovered the evidence was in fact improper, the same evidence would have been discovered inevitably in the course of the legitimate search.

A common textbook example is the police, without probable cause, search a car and find drugs and an illegally owned handgun. But the driver had just been arrested for DWI and the car was on its way to impound where an inventory would have been taken anyway.

People think the exclusionary rule is incredibly broad while in reality it isn't and is so full of exceptions it's like Swiss cheese.

Isn't part of the risk that he throws out his 5th amendment rights by acting as his low lawyer? Anything he says could be used against him. Where as having a lawyer as a middle man ensures that what is said by the lawyer isn't Nick's direct testimony.

Only if he testifies. Opening and closing statements, cross examination of witnesses, legal arguments, objections and the like aren't testimony.

Otherwise the right to represent yourself would be effectively meaningless.

Coke is not that expensive, I'm sure the mustang and stupid paintings cost him much more.

It's plenty expensive when you buy it by the ounce and have a multi-gram a day habit.

Possession of firearms by user of a controlled substance is a crime in itself. Possession of both is evidence of a sperate crime. Nick has not been charged for this, but he could be. It was enough to confiscate them.

Except he has.

Possess Ammo/Any Firearm - User of Controlled SubstancePossess Ammo/Any Firearm - User of Controlled Substance
Statute: 624.713.1(10)(iii)
Additional Statute: Possesses any type of firearm/ammo - Violation of 624.713 subd. 1 other than clause (1) or (2) (624.713.2(c))
Level of Charge: Gross Misdemeanor
Offense Date: May 23 202405/23/2024

This is Nick's argument. 'THEY DIDN'T DISCLOSE A WARRANT TO ALPHABET! IF THEY DID, IT IS A DISCOVERY VIOLATION AND A GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT, SO WE WIN!'

To be a Brady violation, it would have to be exculpatory. Instead, it's utterly damning and incriminating, which is why he's desperately trying to get it excluded.

Now, I'm just a humble retard shitposter, not some big brain prison rat, but I'm not sure I'd trust a lawyer that got sent to prison. A good lawyer, would have avoided prison.

I can think of a few really narrow exceptions, like a lawyer who got locked up for contempt for standing up to a corrupt judge railroading his clients and refusing to let him represent them effectively.

 

[Owlbear]

I think it's very likely we see one after either the Franks hearing or the denial of the Franks hearing and the motion to suppress. At that point, the writing will really be on the wall as to how fucked Nick is. If they don't offer a deal at all they're probably very confident. Even if they do, if it's a bad deal involving even brief incarceration, they're also confident.

My default assumption is that every major event in this trial has some communication of "wanna make a deal?" attached to it. I know very little about criminal trials, but this is sort of how civil court seems to work IME. I really doubt that the state (at this point) wants to throw the book at Nick. The deal today may be something light like 2 years suspended sentence plus a court-ordered treatment plan, but we all know Nick won't go for that.

It will be funny for him to start losing and then start begging for the old deal back. They may even give it to him. I have entertained fantasies that after he loses the Franks hearing, they are going to make the deal terrible for him, but I sort of assume they will want to be somewhat lenient.

 

[Swole McPole]

As much as I would love to see Nick getting a nickel for his bullshit, I'm afraid I'm going to have to be "that guy." People keep saying he is "fucked" meaning he is going to jail.

I've never seen anyone suggest Rekieta is going to jail. When people say 'he's fucked' in respect of his drugs charges, I've always taken that to mean a combination of two things:

a.) His arguments stand no chance of prevailing in court, and
b.) His drug fueled downward spiral will continue.

People haven't gone to prison on simple possession charges since the 60's or 70's. Not even black people. Prison costs too damn much to be sending people away for their personal drug use. Come the 80's and 90's, drug users mostly went to prison for drug related acquisitive crime or for sales. But the mid-90's saw a huge expansion of drug courts and diversion programmes aimed at keeping even THESE people out of prison.

The only reason Rekieta got his collar felt is because he lives in a small rural community and he was flaunting his drug use in public. If he'd refrained from getting blitzed on YouTube, he could be getting quietly wasted in private without anybody ever giving a fuck.

 

[AnOminous]

People haven't gone to prison on simple possession charges since the 60's or 70's.

This isn't actually a simple possession charge. It's a pretty high amount. On top of that, it isn't just drugs, it's guns, too, plus kids are involved.

So I wouldn't get your hopes up but actual incarceration, even as the best deal he could get, is at least actually possible.

And remember Nick himself and his shills like Barnes are predicting total victory because government conspiracy.

You know what that means.

 

[Thomas Talus]

But the mid-90's saw a huge expansion of drug courts and diversion programmes aimed at keeping even THESE people out of prison.

Diversion programs aren't automatic, and typically (prob. universally but I don't have comprehensive knowledge) require entry of a guilty plea which kicks in if you don't comply with the terms of diversion. Both diversion and drug court require you to undergo treatment. Nick doesn't seem like a good candidate for either, as he's unlikely to comply with treatment.

The suspended sentence that I recall being the presumptive sentence on the grid block likely comes with its own terms about treatment and pissing clean. If Nick violates THOSE, then a jumpsuit and a pair of orange sandals are in his future.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The well-oiled criminal justice machine would grind to a halt if defendants took everything to trial.

"If every defendant got the full amount of justice they deserve, the system would grind to a halt" is not a justification for giving some defendants less than the full amount of justice they deserve.

Sure, some defendants can plea out early, thus saving your "machine" some wear and tear, but you need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario: every defendant gets a fair trial.

Suggesting that defendants should be punished more harshly for getting a full, fair trial is downright abominable.

 

[Autistic Integrity]

"If every defendant got the full amount of justice they deserve, the system would grind to a halt" is not a justification for giving some defendants less than the full amount of justice they deserve.

Sure, some defendants can plea out early, thus saving your "machine" some wear and tear, but you need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario: every defendant gets a fair trial.

Suggesting that defendants should be punished more harshly for getting a full, fair trial is downright abominable.

It's more like if you take a plea you will get a more lenient sentence. Let a jury decide your sentence, be prepared for the maximum possible.

 

[Kosher Salt]

It's more like if you take a plea you will get a more lenient sentence. Let a jury decide your sentence, be prepared for the maximum possible.

I think the judge, not the jury, decides the sentence in Minnesota, but otherwise yes, if you go to trial you should be prepared for any outcome. I wouldn't say "maximum possible", because sentencing guidelines can be exceeded but only in unusual situations, but you should be prepared for whatever the sentencing guidelines state at least. Your lawyer can probably tell you whether you're risking having the judge exceed the guidelines or not.

I draw a distinction between rewarding a defendant with a slightly better outcome for taking a plea, vs. punishing a defendant for going to trial. The former is fine, the latter is unjust. If going to trial just gets them what they deserved, that is fine; if the "machine" is angry at them for having the audacity to make it go all the way to justice, that is wrong.

People are only going to go to trial if they think the outcome will be better. They're not going to say "eh, I could take this plea, or I go to trial and get the same thing, you know what I'm going to spend thousands of my own dollars to take this to trial because the State is going to spend 1.5x that, and fuck the state". Especially not when they're paying a lawyer. I could see defendants with a public defender wanting to take it all the way, but it's not just to screw over the State; it's in the hopes of getting a better outcome. Being hauled through the process isn't fun, even if the prosecutor is along for the ride. It's less fun for you than it is for them. They're salaried.