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 .
AnOminous said:
They already streamed the very first hearing.
Click to expand...
The one that state law specifically says can't be streamed?

1723830670582.png
 
Kosher Salt said:
The one that state law specifically says can't be streamed?
Click to expand...

IANAL. I've done a lot of reading, so let me give you my understanding of what is going on. It's important to understand the framework of the (colloquial) law in Minnesota to know what that out-of-context blurb you just posted means.

You just referenced courts rules. Court rules are rules, not statutes nor laws.

In Minnesota, the legislature passes laws. Laws add, modify, or delete portions of statutes. A statute is the written description of what the state can do, such as punish someone for what they do (commit a crime). Certain bodies are empowered to write rules that govern their behavior within the framework provided by statutes. Most of these are administrative bodies, but the judiciary specially gets to write court rules.

Court rules are the guidelines the court imposes on themselves and anyone interacting with them such as prosecutors and defense attorneys. The courts have authority to alter those rules.

From the Minnesota Court Rules, General Rules of Practice:

Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Modification; Service on Parties; Applicability to Self-Represented Litigants​

Rule 1.01 Scope​

These rules shall apply in all trial courts of the state. These rules may be cited as Minn. Gen. R. Prac. ___.

Rule 1.02 Modification​

A judge may modify the application of these rules in any case to prevent manifest injustice.
Click to expand...
So yeah, if the court really wants to, it can stream the very first hearing even though the rules say they can't.

However, they did not stream the first hearing according to their own rules.

Rule 4. Visual and Audio Recordings​

Rule 4.01 General Rule​

Except as set forth in this rule, no visual or audio recordings, except the recording made as the official court record, shall be taken in any courtroom, area of a courthouse where courtrooms are located, or other area designated by order of the chief judge made available in the office of the court administrator in the county, during a trial or hearing of any case or special proceeding incident to a trial or hearing, or in connection with any grand jury proceedings. Visual coverage or recording includes film, video, livestreaming, and still photography. For purposes of this rule, a hearing held remotely using video technology is not considered livestreaming and any recording or broadcasting of such hearings is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the presiding judge.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

The Zoom call for the first hearing was a hearing held remotely using video technology. This is explicitly not considered (live)streaming.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Friend of Dorothy Parker and Terrifik
Long-time Lurker said:
You just referenced courts rules. Court rules are rules, not statutes nor laws.
Click to expand...
A meaningless distinction. Contempt of court is a law, and applies to disobedience to the court's judgments, orders, or processes. Violating a court rule is violating state law.
Long-time Lurker said:
The Zoom call for the first hearing was a hearing held remotely using video technology. This is explicitly not considered (live)streaming.
Click to expand...
The rule doesn't say you can't attend a pretrial hearing, and as far as the court was concerned, the Zoom call was an extension of the courtroom. The rule is that attendees of the hearing shall not record any visual or audio coverage of it.

Nobody was supposed to record/stream the hearing, which is now publicly posted all over YouTube. You'd similarly violate the court rule if you walked into the courtroom with a cellphone surreptitiously recording audio in your pocket.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: anonymong and Joshuan Moon
trash cat said:
Jason Close was the first person to request Nick's bodycam footage.False; Jason Close was not the first. His request was made four days after the first request, and was way down at the end of the request list.
Click to expand...
That isn't the only lie in that claim. He managed to fit two lies into it. Jason Close didn't even request the bodycam footage. He requested the arrest warrant.
Dumpster dived waifu said:
I'm not smart enough, but does the prosecutor saying he doesn't care matter or change anything at all?
Click to expand...
It's probably good. The prosecutor just ignoring it wouldn't say anything, but actually taking the time to correct one of Nick's lies is helpful, even if the prosecutor is taking no position on the actual issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noah Boddy, Hellion, koos koets and 3 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Reposting this here:
Click to expand...
Disappointing but not surprising, considering we were asking for a deviation from the normal rule. I think there was reasonable cause for it, but whatever, the judge doesn't. "The request is premature" almost seems like a suggestion.
Bogliacci said:
Doesn't this just mean someone can go in and take notes instead of being able to record it though?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Nick can lie about it of course and insist whoever it is got everything wrong, but anyone worth caring about knows to ignore anything that comes out of that skelly's lie-hole.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Hellion, Bill Evans 45 and 7 others
Null said:
If you intend to visit in person and take notes, please contact me via DM with some evidence that you're going to go (if you're in MN, messaging without VPN is sufficient for this purpose). I am trying to organize the note taking.
Click to expand...
to be clear, these people who are going in person do not represent kiwi farms. correct?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Terrifik
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back