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

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?


  • Total voters
    1,268
  • Poll closed .
Fuck that, that's just bullshit coercion from the State. My man, the Rekieta KNOWS he's innocent on all charges and there's no way he's bitchmade enough to accept any deal with a corrupt government out to get him. He'll prove he's not guilty, he has all the receipts, it will all come out at trial. Come on Rekieta, we believe in you!!!
For real though, it's obvious between the State of Minnesota and his church and his sister in law and Detective pomplin or whatever that faggot name is, it is a clear conspiracy. After all, he had cocaine on his gloves and touched the nine year old's hair. You know that was ordered to be done by Tim walz himself. The order came down from the top
 
@Useful_Mistake @AnOminous is there any possibility the prosecutor was informing the judge of more charges coming up related to the google stuff and that's why the settlement conference was rebooked?
I don't know anything about law and don't know why they hold things off record. Please don't beat me.
Please god that would be so funny.
 
Delaying the inevitable. If he didn't take the deal now, he's not going to.
Sean's inside source says he's taking it to trial, so I'm leaning towards that because he would have taken the deal today to not have to stress for another month, but it's very possible Nick changed his mind and something else happened

I'm torn between Nick being unpredictable and indignant
 
You know? All these clandestine meetings in the courtroom really lend credence to the idea that there’s a secret government conspiracy to use the courts to attack Rekeita. They should really broadcast these hearings to dispel any rumors of government malfeasance.
Not really. You'd be amazed how many cases are ended by an agreement literally in a hallway or stairwell. Even when the jury is being empaneled or even during the case. Suddenly it's just over, and nothing even occurred in court.
 
Can the judge push the prosecutors towards dropping the child endangerment charges in order to secure a guilty plea for the other charges? Or is that down the discretion of the prosecutors only?
 
@Useful_Mistake @AnOminous is there any possibility the prosecutor was informing the judge of more charges coming up related to the google stuff and that's why the settlement conference was rebooked?
Anything is possible. It's really premature to speculate. None of us, at least none of us currently posting, really has any clue other than what we already know.
Can the judge push the prosecutors towards dropping the child endangerment charges in order to secure a guilty plea for the other charges? Or is that down the discretion of the prosecutors only?
Prosecutorial discretion is virtually infinite, but yes, the judge could tell the prosecutor he isn't going to accept such-and-such a deal. It begins to get questionable if he is negotiating off the record, ex parte, with one party without telling the other.
 
"Meeting held off the record"?

View attachment 6690114

Thats interesting. I'm sure someone was in the hearing right?
Just a guess but I wonder if they want to wait until Kayla's bite at the warrant apple is resolved before any plea. Wentzell gets it under advisement on 12/9. DENIED entered a week later on 12/16. Everyone pleas out on the 12/17.

A neat wrinkle would be Aaron getting arrested for SWATting.
 
I suppose if Kayla gets the warrant dismissed his odds on getting better deal might improve. It will not and he will get worse one, but at least there is theoretical hope.
The warrant is rock solid. He walked out with nothing today.
Sean's inside source says he's taking it to trial, so I'm leaning towards that because he would have taken the deal today to not have to stress for another month, but it's very possible Nick changed his mind and something else happened

I'm torn between Nick being unpredictable and indignant
Nick is a cokehead. His brain is fried. He's going to make the dumbest decision possible. Trial is... inevitable.
fingersnapTOPALT.jpg
 
No, off the record means it was in chambers without public access.
It was scheduled for a court room (Court Room 210), wouldn't someone had heard the case called, and the request to discuss in chambers? There typically would be some discussion of "we have matters that would be best discussed off the record due to involvement of minors" etc. Off the record can also just be at the bench with the attorneys. Court Room 210 is a regular court room, which had arraignments, probation hearings etc so it is a regular court room, not chambers.

Unless they made a hallway deal with the prosecutor, who then approached the judge about a private hearing in chambers and they all snuck in the back door without the case being called.
 
"Meeting held off the record"?

View attachment 6690114

Thats interesting. I'm sure someone was in the hearing right?
There are children involved so they probably kept it like that for their sake. There's also a lot of negotiating that occurs during these settlement conferences. If the state brings any new evidence forward (such as including the witness tampering) they may try to leverage stronger penalties.

Basically, they probably just didn't have time to negotiate everything. Which means Nick may well try to be taking a plea deal but trying to take the bestest plea deal he can. While that may be a bummer, Nick is also terminally retarded thanks to the holes in his brain. Nick thinks he's the smartest man in the room trying to negotiate a super deal... but in reality all he may be doing is just pissing off the state even more.

My prediction is that the negotiations completely break down and Nick's attitude gets him in even more shit.
 
Back