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

[AnOminous]

The dividing lines on the cover of Bromke's template are misaligned and with lossy compression, and it bothers me more than it should.

I always get a foreboding feeling when the format is off. I got autistic ratings for pointing it out when Ty Beard's filings always looked like absolute shit and the fonts were fucked up, but look how that turned out.

 

[Lian Xing]

I am a bit disappointed that he did not argue that the right for the public to view the footage is also born from the out of courts statements made by the defendant about the content of the footage, including the exact scene cited in the briefing about the alleged Miranda Violation.

This may be a stupid question, but at the appellate level, can the court even consider anything that isn’t in the trial court record? Hardinship spent some of his very precious pages on the de novo review authority because there wasn’t an opportunity to be heard at the trial court. It would seem to me that the out-of-court statements would just be a waste of space.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

but at the appellate level, can the court even consider anything that isn’t in the trial court record?

Sometimes.

 

[AnOminous]

This may be a stupid question, but at the appellate level, can the court even consider anything that isn’t in the trial court record?

In this case, yes, because this is largely about what the trial court did to hide the record. That's one of the facts at issue. Why did the trial court deliberately cover up the footage without even allowing the moving party a chance to respond?

It's supposedly an intervention in a case between a criminal defendant (the criminal Nicholas Robert Rekieta) and the State of Minnesota, but in actuality, it's a civil case by a person with rights against the court itself.