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

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Will Nicholas Rekieta take the plea deal offered to him?

  • Łączna liczba głosujących
    1 268
  • Ankieta zamknięta .
Wyróżnienie
Nick responded:
Screenshot 2025-06-16 142828.webp
 

Załączniki

Useful_Mistake powiedział(a):
Nick responded:
Wyświetl załącznik 7511216
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
It is still the same lame-ass argument.
They are trying to use a case in which falsely publicized evidence (which was supposed to be filed under seal) was retroactively removed, to claim that this case is the same.

It is not. In this case the attorney of the defense submitted bodycam footage as evidence during a pre-trial hearing, which makes it accessible to the public.
The attorney explicitly said that he wanted to bring up the matter of the bodycam footage before motions in limine, to avoid his client losing the right to challenge the evidence being brought in.

This argument was an explicit point made in filings and during the omnibus hearing in court.
How can they retroactively remove evidence presented that was referenced and discussed during the hearing and in filings? That makes no sense and is not supported by any case law.
 
Surely if it was filed publicly in error, the retraction would've been timely rather than this closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted shit.

This is Greer-esque revisionist history.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
The case that Nick's lawyer is citing seems to be something like if the Court had made public the sealed CPS results as evidence, which obviously are not supposed to be public.

In this case, its evidence Nick's own lawyer presented. It shouldn't matter whether or not using it became moot later, they specifically entered it into evidence with the intent to use it. 'Actually, I didn't need to use this because Nick admitted guilt' isnt remotely the same situation. Especially since its HIS LAWYER who insisted the evidence was critical to Nick's case and specifically wanted to use it to argue.
 

Załączniki

"who is kandiyoh county and why are these ppl so disrespect (of transparency)"

Good job to Matthew Hardin for trying to get this bodycam footage. It's almost like an elusive thing in a county of corrupt fuckers. May he win.
 
I, for one, am fully ensured in the sanctity of the court system and their ability to correct harmless errors such as striking from the record something a defendant used as evidence to benefit the defendant and the state.
 
So what's the connection between Nick and this sherriff dude that he's willing to face fines and a lawsuit just to keep the bodycam footage hidden?

if he wanted it hidden because it makes his officers look bad then Nick would have pounced on it in court but that didn't happen and no doubt the cops going out to arrest Nick knew he was a lawyer so they would fuck around with him

So what the deal here? why is this sherriff going so far as to ignore orders from the state just to protect Nick's flat ass?
 
Lapsus of the bepsus powiedział(a):
my bad, it looks like i was wrong and the footage available at the courthouse was uncensored which is why it wasnt deemed suitable for "remote public access"
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
It's a huge red flag when material is made available for the entire world to see by visiting and arrangement with the courthouse but is also determined to be not suitable for remote public access.

It's either public or not public and imposing restrictions such as those here can only be for the purpose of restricting access to material that public access to can't be legitimately refused.

It's code for "we're playing fast and loose".
 
Wyróżnienie
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole