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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
If there is a plea deal, can Nick´s team include conditions in it such as sealing the bodycam footage?
It's been brought up before up thread, but if the bodycam is not presented in court, it is possible they never release it. (A matter of public interest or concern is the typical exception, as well as any death captured on cam.) Minnesota has, for whatever reason, very strict rules about releasing this material.

Presumably some politicians in St Paul didn't want their kids' DUIs getting posted to the Internet.
 
The judge's order was filed today, somewhat earlier than expected, following the omnibus hearing in Nick Rekieta's case and the filings by Nick's lawyer and the state.

The results?

Rekieta's motion for Franks hearing: DENIED
Rekieta's motion to suppress evidence: DENIED
All other omnibus issues not argued with particularity or otherwise specifically identified to the Court: DENIED (having been deemed to be waived by Rekieta)


View attachment 6450448
GLORIOUS
 
It's been brought up before up thread, but if the bodycam is not presented in court, it is possible they never release it. (A matter of public interest or concern is the typical exception, as well as any death captured on cam.) Minnesota has, for whatever reason, very strict rules about releasing this material.

Presumably some politicians in St Paul didn't want their kids' DUIs getting posted to the Internet.
I think it's a safe bet that Nick is taking this to trial. He basically has to if he wants to appeal the ruling on the Franks motion.
We will have to be patient, but we will get to see the bodycam footage.
The only question that remains is whether it will be worth the wait.
 
I think it's a safe bet that Nick is taking this to trial. He basically has to if he wants to appeal the ruling on the Franks motion.
We will have to be patient, but we will get to see the bodycam footage.
The only question that remains is whether it will be worth the wait.
He might plea but no matter what happens it's funny.

GOD'S PLAN
 
Rekieta's motion for Franks hearing: DENIED
Rekieta's motion to suppress evidence: DENIED
All other omnibus issues not argued with particularity or otherwise specifically identified to the Court: DENIED (having been deemed to be waived by Rekieta)
In lieu of another copestream,
 
This is the sequence of what happened

In the state's response to Nick's motion filed by his Barneswalking lawyer, they request an additional briefing schedule if Nick was intending to challenge probable cause (rather than simply request a Franks hearing)

View attachment 6450593

The Barneswalker in his reply wrote that "pursuant to the State's suggestion" Nick "does wish to turn this into a general probable cause dismissal" and requests an additional briefing schedule (presumably in the event they failed to win with the Franks hearing)

Yes that's right. According to this sentence the Barneswalker appears not to have even thought of challenging probable cause (the most obvious challenge to make at this stage of the proceedings) until "the State's suggestion" of it in their brief.

EVEN REKIETA WAS ABLE TO DO THIS WHEN HE WAS PRACTICING!


This statement appeared on the last page of the reply, page 8, under the "Conclusion" heading with no additional context earlier in the document that I could find.

View attachment 6450594

The judge laughed it off below.... apparently he has no interest in wasting more time on this stupid shit.

View attachment 6450595

The Barneswalker fucked up massively. It's not like it would have done any good in the end, because that wouldn't have worked either but Nick would be justified to be furious at this. It's beyond sloppy.
Sounds like Barneswalker attended the Ty Beard School of Law. Nice lawyering, stupid!
 
I thought probable cause was the entire thesis of Nick's challenge to the warrant. Isn't that was the omnibussy was about? Or is that somehow separate? Why would it be separate?
you can challenge the probable cause without asking for a franks hearing. but that should have been done at the omnibus itself, or done completely in the motion for the franks hearing, which it wasn't, since the motion focused mostly on just trying to get the franks hearing.

The Barneswalker fucked up massively. It's not like it would have done any good in the end, because that wouldn't have worked either but Nick would be justified to be furious at this. It's beyond sloppy.
i don't know if it's a massive fuck-up so much as it is a hail mary since the probable cause just isn't worth attacking. the state vaguely suggested the possibility of scheduling a briefing for a probable cause dismissal, and if the judge was in a good mood, he might have given them the chance, but he didn't. half-assing something that had no chance of working anyway isn't the same as failing to do something they really should have.

they needed franks because they needed to go beyond the 4 corners of the warrant, and franks would have allowed that. that's why they focused on it. a regular probable cause challenge wouldn't have done that so they didn't pursue it, but the state "suggested" it, or at least suggested scheduling one, and so the defense said, "shit, well, if they're willing to let us, i'd be happy to try and challenge the probable cause!" but the judge said no dice. that's at least my understanding.
 
I mean, if you're going to challenge probable cause, it's probably a good idea to mention probable cause somewhere in your motions. But ianal so what do I know?
I think Nick and his genius lawyer thought that the Frank's hearing was a foregone conclusion, so there was no need to bring up silly things... like probable cause.
 
you can challenge the probable cause without asking for a franks hearing. but that should have been done at the omnibus itself, or done completely in the motion for the franks hearing, which it wasn't, since the motion focused mostly on just trying to get the franks hearing.
Even if Barneswalker didn't want to make a probably losing argument the primary focus of the hearing, it was incompetence at the very least bordering on malpractice not even to give it a passing mention enough to preserve the issue.
I think Nick and his genius lawyer thought that the Frank's hearing was a foregone conclusion, so there was no need to bring up silly things... like probable cause.
"Probable cause, who gives a fuck?
We're taking down a whore and a bignosed cuck."
 
Very quick look through Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure shows Rule 28.02(3) is likely controlling, which reads "Subd. 3. Discretionary Review. — In the interests of justice and on petition of the defendant, the Court of Appeals may allow an appeal from an order not otherwise appealable, but not from an order made during trial. The petition must be served and filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed. Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 105 governs the procedure for the appeal."

Rule 28.02(2) lays out the orders that are "otherwise appealable", none of which are applicable here. Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 105 is a procedural rule allowing for the Court of Appeals to loosen certain procedural rules if necessary and doesn't matter for Nick's case either.

So it appears Nick has 30 days to ask the Court of Appeals "pwetty please don't let the prosecutor use my incriminating stream against me and shieeet," to which the Court of Appeals can, and almost certainly will, tell him to get fucked and deny him cert.

Edit: I'm retarded apparently and can't read literally one page back where @he who has thus come/gone already said this
 
Very quick look through Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure shows Rule 28.02(3) is likely controlling, which reads "Subd. 3. Discretionary Review. — In the interests of justice and on petition of the defendant, the Court of Appeals may allow an appeal from an order not otherwise appealable, but not from an order made during trial. The petition must be served and filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed. Minnesota Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 105 governs the procedure for the appeal."
Almost all "catch-all" rules like this allowing a court to deviate from its standard practice have a really high bar to clear to justify why this specific case justifies such a deviation. There's absolutely nothing about this completely routine, cut-and-dried ruling that would justify allowing an interlocutory appeal. Not even Randazza could come up with a good argument for it, and instead, Nick has his own personal Ty Beard who bumbled and fumbled the basic probable cause issue so it's not even on the table any more.
 
SIGGER ALERT!
Thank you for showing that balldo has really awful taste in guns.
Hey now, he could have a Tarrus....
He might plea but no matter what happens it's funny.

GOD'S PLAN
One thing I think needs to be mentioned... How willing is the prosecution going to give a plea right now given that this is an election year, he's a (relatively major) public figure locally, the judge just made a fact finding report and concluded the evidence in the record, and he keeps screaming conspiracy while talking about pussy liqueur judges lmao.

Funniest outcome for me is prosecution says no to a plea, he takes it to a bench trial, looses and appeals resulting in the release of the bodycam anyways.
 
The analysis from the Kiwi Farms Law Couch was correct after all, truly shocking!

Law Couch observers win again! :P

Bing/Dall-E Generated Image of a Kiwi Bird, slobber mutt, and hamster sitting on a couch
 
Here's the intro to Potentially Criminal's latest Nick stream. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

Full stream here:

Apologies if this was already posted.
Screenshot 2024-09-25 154254.png
 

Attachments

Back