===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-18209_Correspondence_2023-05-18_20240429162058.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-18209 defendant: JULIET KAY HIGGINS filing_type: Correspondence filing_date: 2023-05-18 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/18/2023 9:13 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT OF MINNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT PROBATE/MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 4TH FLOOR COURTS TOWER HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487-0340 (612) 348-6000 May 18, 2023 Amanda Jung Competency Education Coordinator Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center 3301 7th Avenue North Anoka, MN 55303 RE: Juliet Kay Higgins, Court File Numbers 27-CR-22-18209; 27-MH-PR-23-117 Dear Ms. Jung, The Court received notification that AMRTC plans to grant Juliet Higgins a provisional discharge and place her in an unspecified assisted living customized living facility. On September 13, 2022, Ms. Higgins was charged with Domestic Assault by Strangulation. On February 21, 2023, Referee Mercurio ordered Ms. Higgins to be conditionally released with no bail and with the following conditions: • Obey all laws; • Attend all future Court appearances; • No contact with the alleged victim, JA and stay away from a three-block radius of where J.A. lives, works, or goes to school; • Comply with all Court Orders in Court File No. 27-MH-PR-23-117; • Do not possess any firearm, ammunition, or other item used as a weapon; and • Stay away from 5841 73rd Avenue N, Brooklyn Park, MN On February 21, 2023, this Court placed Ms. Higgins under civil commitment, issuing an Order for Commitment as a Person Who Poses a Risk of Harm Due to Mental Illness (“Commitment Order”). See Court File No. 27-MH-PR-23-117. On April 27, 2023, Ms. Higgins was transported from the Hennepin County Jail to ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 5/18/2023 9:13 AM AMRTC. 1 On May 15, 2023, AMRTC notified the Court that it intended to transfer Ms. Higgins to an unspecified assisted living/customized living facility and that this action will go into effect on May 22, 2023. The Court requests AMRTC address compliance with this Court’s Order for Commitment as a Person Who Poses Risk of Harm due to Mental Illness dated February 21, 2023, Court File No. 27-MH-PR-23-117, which requires notice to the “Criminal Division and parties at least 14 days prior to the Proposed change in status.” See Amended Order for Commitment as a Person who Poses a Risk of Harm Due to a Mental Illness dated February 21, 2023 at 5, Court File No Court File No. 27-MH-PR-23-117. Moreover, any such proposed change requires the AMRTC to show “1) whether the Respondent is competent, 2) how the proposed plan will meet Respondent’s treatment needs, and 3) security risks and how they will be addressed.” Id. In the event AMRTC cannot continue to house Ms. Higgins, we note that the conditions of release stated above still apply. By the Court, Dayton Klein, Julia 2023.05.18 08:54:31 -05'00' Julia Dayton Klein Assistant Presiding Judge of Probate Mental Health cc: Hon. Juan Hoyos, Judge of District Court Dominik Haik, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender Brittany Lawonn, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Terry Hegna, Esq. 1 The Court notes that Minn. Stat. § 253B.10 requires the Commissioner of Human Services to prioritize patients being admitted from jail or a correctional institution and, in any event, requires patients under civil commitment for competency treatment and continuing supervision under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.01 to be admitted to a state-operated treatment program within 48 hours. Here, Ms. Higgins waited in jail for over two months for placement in a state-operated treatment program. ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-18209_Demand or Request for Discovery_2022-09-20_20240429162114.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-18209 defendant: JULIET KAY HIGGINS filing_type: Demand or Request for Discovery filing_date: 2022-09-20 pages: 008 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM RRRRRRR STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT – FELONY DIVISION COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, ) ) DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION Plaintiff, ) AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE, ) AND MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION vs. ) AND OTHER RELIEF ) Juliet Higgins, ) ) MNCIS No. 27-CR-22-18209 Defendant ) * * * Defendant, by and through counsel, hereby demands preservation of, disclosure of, and access to all evidence related to the case; moves the Court for the relief specified below; and demands a hearing on the same. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE Defendant demands that the State preserve all information and evidence within the reach of the disclosures required under Rule 9.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and applicable case law. . Defendant further demands that the State disclose all such information and evidence, and that it make all disclosures required by Rule 9.01 prior to the probable cause pretrial conference in this case. Defendant demands access to all items subject to disclosure, and this access shall include, as appropriate, the opportunity to inspect, reproduce, photograph, test, interview, or otherwise document the matters disclosed. These demands apply to: 1. Investigative reports prepared by state agents or employees in the investigation or evaluation of the case, together with the original notes of the arresting officers, if any. 2. Statements, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(2). This request includes any written or recorded statement made by the Defendant or any alleged accomplice, regardless of when made, and the substance of any non-recorded oral statements by the ===== PAGE 002/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM Defendant or accomplices. This request includes recorded statements by any other person and any written record containing the substance of statements by them, whether or not they are expected to be called at trial. This request includes statements made to any member of prosecution’s staff, victim advocates, and any other person of which the government is aware or should be aware. State v. Adams, 555 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. App. 1996). It also includes disclosure of the fact that an interview with a witness took place, regardless of whether it was transcribed or whether written statements or written summaries were prepared. State v. Kaiser, 486 N.W.2d 384, 386-87 (Minn. 1992) This request also encompasses copies of recorded statements made pursuant to State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994) and any attempted recordings that for whatever alleged reason are inaudible or unavailable. 3. Audio or video records produced regarding this case, including squad video, 911 calls, radio runs, police radio communications, scout runs, police transport recordings, and record checks. 4. Reports related to examinations, tests, or expert testimony, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(4). In addition to disclosure, Defendant also demands the in-person testimony of all analysts who performed tests the results of which the state intends to introduce into evidence at any hearing related to this case. Further, defendant hereby provides notice that he retains his right to cross-examine the analysts under State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304, Minn. 2006. 5. Documents and other tangible objects, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(3) 6. Search warrants obtained and executed regarding the case, including inventories and items seized. 7. Identification procedures including but not limited to lineups, show-up identifications, photo arrays, or the like, and details on the nature and circumstances of any and all identification procedures that become known to the government in the future. 8. Witnesses and other persons, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 9. Conviction records for all witnesses and other persons, as required to be disclosed under Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 10. Prior convictions of the Defendant or defense witnesses, to be provided as certified copies. In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to use a conviction to impeach any defense witness, including Defendant. 2 ===== PAGE 003/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM 11. Alleged but uncharged misconduct, prior bad acts, or relationship evidence which the State intends to introduce at trial in this matter, disclosure to include police reports and any other documentation. 12. Evidence related to an enhanced or aggravated sentence, as identified in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(7). In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to seek an aggravated or enhanced sentence. These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the State after the State has begun complying with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TENDING TO NEGATE OR REDUCE THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT Defendant demands that the State preserve and disclose all evidence and information known to the State which tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the Defendant, together with all evidence and information which might tend to mitigate or reduce potential punishment, as required under Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 subd. 1(6), under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and under subsequent cases. This demand includes but is not limited to the following: 1. Evidence of bias of government witnesses or any consideration given a witness in return for cooperation with the government, including any information regarding pre-existing hard feelings, arguments, grudges, and disputes between the complainant and the Defendant. 2. Information that a government witness and/or informant was under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or any other drug at the time of the observations about which the witness will testify and/or the informant informed. 3 ===== PAGE 004/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM 3. Information tending to show the unreliability of a government witness, or which would tend to discredit the testimony of a government witness, including a request for any prior inconsistent, non-corroborative, or other witness statements which the witness' trial testimony will not reflect. 4. Information—including docket numbers, dates and jurisdictions—indicating that a. a government witness has had a pending juvenile or criminal case on or since the offense in this case; b. a government witness was arrested, pleaded guilty, had a trial, or was sentenced on or since the date of the offense in the present case; c. a government witness was on juvenile or criminal parole or probation on or since the date of the offense; and d. a government witness now has or has had any other liberty interest that the witness could believe or could have believed might be favorably affected by government action. 5. Information that any government witness is or has been a police informant either at the time of the offense and/or through the day of trial, including the kind of assistance or benefits provided. "Benefit" refers to any monetary compensation, assistance of the prosecutor or the court concerning pending charges against the informant, or any other sort of consideration of value. Here, the demanded disclosure includes but is not limited to: a. the length and extent of the witness' informant status; b. the amounts that have been paid to the informant in connection with this case; c. non-monetary assistance provided or promised to the informant, including, but not limited to, assistance in avoiding or minimizing harm from charges pending against the informant either at the time of the offense and/or any other time through the day of trial; d. all statements made to the informant that promised benefits would not be provided without cooperation in connection with this case; e. the nature of assistance provided to the informant prior to this case, including the number of occasions and form of help. 6. Information which tends to show a government witness' corruption including anything in police officers' personnel files indicative of corruption. 4 ===== PAGE 005/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM 7. Perjury by any government witness at any time, whether or not adjudicated and whether or not in connection with this case. 8. Information that any government witness has made prior false accusations, including but not limited to prior complaints to the police or law enforcement agencies that did not result in a conviction. 9. Information regarding any prior "bad act" of a government witness which may bear upon the veracity of the witness with respect to the issues involved in the trial, including but not limited to the issues of self-defense or defense of others. 10. Any other information tending to show a government witness' bias in favor of the government or against the defendant or which otherwise impeaches a witness' testimony, including civilian-review-board complaints against police officers involving facts similar to those of this case, whether resolved for or against the officer. 11. Names and addresses of all witnesses who do not fully corroborate the government's case or would serve to contradict or impeach the government's evidence. 12. Any indication of threats or acts of aggression toward the defendant by the complainant or decedent, and any information that the complainant had possession of any weapons at the time of the incident. Also, any other information which would indicate that the complainant was the first aggressor and/or that the Defendant acted in self-defense. 13. Names and address of any person who: a. identified some person other than the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense; b. failed to identify the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense when asked to do so in any identification procedure; c. gave any description(s) of the perpetrator(s) of the alleged offense which in any material respect differs from my client. 14. Information known to the government which is favorable to the defense, whether or not technically admissible in court, and which is material to the issues of guilt and/or punishment. This includes all information that the Defendant was not involved in the alleged offenses and/or that the requisite elements required to prove any of the charged offenses cannot be met. 5 ===== PAGE 006/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM Defendant further demands that all officers and investigative agencies concerned abide by their continuing obligation to discover, preserve, and disclose in writing any information or materials that might be viewed as favorable to the Defendant on the issues of suppression, guilt, or punishment, either substantively, as impeachment, or as tending to discredit the government's witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) (imposing upon law enforcement and the prosecutor a "duty to learn" favorable information relating to the Defendant). These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the prosecutor, staff, or anyone investigation investigating this case after the State has begun its compliance with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND ACCESS Defendant moves the Court for an Order requiring the State 1 To preserve all evidence and other matters subject to disclosure as herein demanded and as otherwise required by Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.01. 2 To permit Defendant to have access to, inspect, reproduce, photograph, or otherwise document all disclosed items, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1 & subd. 1a(2). 3 To allow defendant to conduct reasonable tests or to provide notice and an opportunity for defense experts to observe the state’s own tests if those tests preclude further tests or experiments, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1(4)(b). 4 To assist Defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case which are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency, but which are not within the control of the prosecuting attorney, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd 2(1). 6 ===== PAGE 007/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM 5 For an Order directing the prosecuting attorney to identify and produce any informants who supplied or contributed information to the prosecution which led to the issuance of a Complaint against the Defendant on the grounds: a. The privilege of non-disclosure of any informants must give way and disclosure of the identity of an informer is required where disclosure is essential or relevant and material, and helpful to the defense of an accused, or lessens the risk of false testimony, or is necessary to secure useful testimony, or is necessary to a fair determination of the cause; or b. Disclosure is necessary as a means to afford this Defendant an opportunity to establish that if informants did exist, that the information supplied to the prosecutor by them was inaccurate or misrepresentative. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE Defendant moves the Court for an Order suppressing, particularly with respect to those items identified in the state’s notice under Rule 7.01: 1 Any and all evidence obtained as a result of a stop, search, or seizure, on the ground that such evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant’s constitutional and statutory protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 Any and all confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by Defendant, together with any evidence obtained as a result thereof, on the grounds that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. 3 Any and all identifications of Defendant and evidence of identification procedures used during the investigation, together with any evidence obtained as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation, on the ground that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. Defendant further moves this court for an order suppressing other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 7 ===== PAGE 008/008 ===== 27-CR-22-18209 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 9/20/2022 2:36 PM Defendant moves the Court for an Order restraining the prosecution from attempting to introduce at trial: 1 Evidence obtained as a result of stop, search, or seizure, confession or other statement by the Defendant, or identification procedures, as described above, on the grounds that the notices filed by the State are vague, ambiguous, and inspecific, all to the prejudice of the Defendant and contrary to the meaning of Minnesota R. Crim. P. 7.01. 2 Evidence that Defendant has been guilty of additional misconduct or crimes on other occasions, on the grounds that the state has not provided notice of its intent to use such evidence or, if it did, that such notice was not specific enough or failed to specify a particular exception to the general rule of exclusion. Defendant also moves for exclusion on the grounds that the evidence is not admissible under any exception to the general rule of exclusion, that such evidence is more prejudicial than probative, or that such evidence has not been proven to be clear and convincing. 3 Evidence, argument, or any other reference to prior convictions, if any, of the Defendant. 4 Any and all other evidence for which the State has failed to provide notice as required by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure Defendant further moves this court for an order excluding other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. DEMAND FOR HEARING Defendant hereby demands a contested hearing on the above motions, to be held as soon as practicable after the serving and filing hereof. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER KASSIUS O. BENSON - CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER By /s/ Raissa Carpenter Attorney ID No. 396413 Attorney for Defendant 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Dated: This 14th of September, 2022. 8 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-18209_Finding of Incompetency and Order_2023-01-24_20240429162103.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-18209 defendant: JULIET KAY HIGGINS filing_type: Finding of Incompetency and Order filing_date: 2023-01-24 pages: 004 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/004 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Jan 25, 2023 7:09 pm STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CRIMINAL DIVISION Court File No. 27-CR-22-18209; State of Minnesota, 27-CR-23-66; 27-CR-23-574; 27-CR-23-762 Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW vs. AND ORDER REGARDING COMPETENCY Juliet Kay Higgins, Defendant. This matter came before the undersigned Judge of District Court on January 24, 2023. The hearing was held remotely using the Zoom internet platform. Robert Sorenson, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, represented the plaintiff in Court File No. 27-CR-22-18209. Defendant appeared in custody and was represented by Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender. Megan Griffin, Minneapolis City Attorney, appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in Court File Nos. 27-CR-23-66, 27-CR-23-574, and 27-CR-23-762. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the Court is applying these findings to cases 27-CR-23-66, 27-CR-23-574, and 27-CR-23-762. Based on all the files, records and proceedings in this case, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant (date of birth 09/30/1968), was charged in MNCIS file 27-CR-22-18209 with Domestic Assault (Felony) arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on 09/11/2022. On 10/13/2022, Judge Juan Hoyos found probable cause to believe that the offense was committed and that Defendant committed it. 2. On 10/13/2022, Judge Juan Hoyos ordered that Defendant undergo an evaluation to assess Defendant’s competency to proceed in this matter pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 20.01. 3. Dr. Kristine Kienlen, Psy.D., L.P., Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, reviewed Defendant’s records, interviewed Defendant, and filed a written report with this Court. 4. Dr. Kristine Kienlen, Psy.D., L.P., Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, opined that Defendant, due to mental illness or cognitive impairment, lacks the ability to ===== PAGE 002/004 ===== rationally consult with counsel; or lacks the ability to understand the proceedings or participate in the defense. This opinion was uncontested by either party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendant is presently incompetent to stand trial. The misdemeanor charges in 27-CR-23- 66, 27-CR-23-574, and 27-CR-23-762 must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 20.01. ORDER 1. The criminal proceedings in this matter are suspended until Defendant is restored to competency to proceed. While suspended, the criminal court retains authority over the criminal case including, but not limited to, bail or conditions of release. 2. Copies of this Order shall be served upon counsel for the parties and any objections to this Order shall be filed with the Court within ten (10) days of the date of service. Dominic Haik, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney – Criminal Division; Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 3. The Hennepin County Prepetition Screening Program (PSP) must conduct a prepetition screening pursuant to the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act and make a recommendation as to whether the defendant should be civilly committed under the Act. 4. PSP shall investigate whether civil commitment should be pursued and forward a recommendation in a written report supporting or not supporting civil commitment to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division (“HCAO-ASD”) within five (5) days of receiving this Order. 5. Prepetition Screening shall provide copies of the Rule 20 Competency Evaluation, the criminal Complaint(s), and the underlying police report(s) along with its written recommendation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division. 6. Defendant is ordered to cooperate with the civil commitment process including appearing at all court appearances in the civil and criminal cases. 7. Members of PSP shall have access to all Defendant’s files and records, including those protected by Federal regulation or law. This Order grants the members of PSP access to the records of any individual or entity that has provided observation, evaluation, diagnosis, care, treatment, or confinement of the Defendant. This Order applies to, but is not limited to, records 2 ===== PAGE 003/004 ===== maintained by: Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court Psychological Services; chemical dependency evaluators and treatment providers; health clinics; medical centers and hospitals; physicians; psychologists; mental health care providers; case managers; parole and probation agencies; residential and nonresidential community mental health treatment facilities or programs; regional treatment centers; the Minnesota Department of Corrections; the correctional authority for any other state; schools and school districts; law enforcement agencies; and the Court’s own records. 8. This Order also authorizes employees or officers of the record keepers described above to discuss the Defendant’s condition, history, treatment, and/or status with the members of PSP. Information collected by PSP pursuant to this Order shall be considered private data on the Defendant, but it may be included in the written report produced by PSP and forwarded to the HCAO-ASD. 9. If the Fourth Judicial District Court – Probate/Mental Health Division finds the Defendant to be mentally ill, developmentally disabled, chemically dependent, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, the Defendant may be committed directly to an appropriate safe and secure facility. The Hennepin County Sheriff shall transport the Defendant from the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center to the custody of the head of the facility named in the order for civil commitment when notified that placement is available for the Defendant. 10. The head of the treatment facility shall submit a written report addressing the Defendant’s competency to proceed in the criminal case when the Defendant has attained competency, or at least every six months. 11. The criminal conditions of release remain in effect until placement at an appropriate facility can occur. 12. If Defendant is not subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, the head of the treatment facility shall hold Defendant safe and secure under the civil commitment, and shall not permit the Defendant’s release, institutional transfer, partial institutionalization status, discharge, or provisional discharge of the civil commitment until the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division has ordered conditions of release consistent with the proposed change in status. Any proposed change in status under the civil commitment requiring amended conditions of release shall be made in writing to the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division and parties at least 14 days prior to proposed change in status. The written proposal 3 ===== PAGE 004/004 ===== shall address the following issues 1) whether the Defendant is competent to proceed; 2) how the proposed plan will meet the Defendant’s treatment needs; and 3) public safety risks and how they will be addressed. Either party may request a hearing to address the proposed changes to the conditions of release. If no hearing is requested, the court may issue an order amending the conditions of release consistent with the proposed change in status in the civil commitment matter. 13. In the event the Fourth Judicial District Court – Mental Health Division does not commit the Defendant, then the Defendant shall be transported in secure custody back to the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division for further proceedings herein. 14. Defendant’s next appearance in Hennepin County District Court – Criminal Division on this matter and status review of Defendant’s competence to proceed is July 25, 2023. One week prior to that date, reports regarding Defendant’s competency and mental status shall be e-filed and e-served to: a. Fourth Judicial District Court – 4thCriminalRule20 email list; b. Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender; c. Dominic Haik, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney; d. Assistant Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division (if a commitment is ordered); e. The Commitment Defense Panel attorney appointed to represent Defendant by the Fourth Judicial District Court – Probate/Mental Health Division. 15. A copy of this Order, the Rule 20.01 Competency Evaluation, the criminal complaint(s), and the underlying police report(s) shall be delivered via email to the Prepetition Screening Program of Hennepin County’s Human Services and Public Health Department. BY THE COURT: Judge of District Court 4 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-22-24627_Request for Disclosure_2022-12-14_20240429164401.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-22-24627 defendant: Rex Allen Basswood, Jr. filing_type: Request for Disclosure filing_date: 2022-12-14 pages: 008 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT - FELONY DIVISION COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, ) DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION Plaintiff, ) AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE, ) AND MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION vs. ) AND OTHER RELIEF ) Rex Allen Basswood Jr, ) MNCIS No. 27-CR-22-24627 ) ) Defendant, ) * * * Defendant, by and through counsel, hereby demands preservation of, disclosure of, and access to all evidence related to the case; moves the Court for the relief specified below; and demands a hearing on the same. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE Defendant demands that the State preserve all information and evidence within the reach of the disclosures required under Rule 9.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and applicable case law. Defendant further demands that the State disclose all such information and evidence, and that it make all disclosures required by Rule 9.01 prior to the probable cause pretrial conference in this case. Defendant demands access to all items subject to disclosure, and this access shall include, as appropriate, the opportunity to inspect, reproduce, photograph, test, interview, or otherwise document the matters disclosed. These demands apply to: 1. Investigative reports prepared by state agents or employees in the investigation or evaluation of the case, together with the original notes of the arresting officers, if any. 2. Statements, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(2). This request includes any written or recorded statement made by the Defendant or any alleged accomplice, regardless of when made, and the substance of any non-recorded oral statements by the Defendant or accomplices. This request includes recorded statements by any other person and any written record containing the substance of statements by them, whether ===== PAGE 002/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM or not they are expected to be called at trial. This request includes statements made to any member of prosecution’s staff, victim advocates, and any other person of which the government is aware or should be aware. State v. Adams, 555 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. App. 1996). It also includes disclosure of the fact that an interview with a witness took place, regardless of whether it was transcribed or whether written statements or written summaries were prepared. State v. Kaiser, 486 N.W.2d 384, 386-87 (Minn. 1992) This request also encompasses copies of recorded statements made pursuant to State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994) and any attempted recordings that for whatever alleged reason are inaudible or unavailable. 3. Audio or video records produced regarding this case, including squad video, 911 calls, radio runs, police radio communications, scout runs, police transport recordings, and record checks. 4. Reports related to examinations, tests, or expert testimony, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(4). In addition to disclosure, Defendant also demands the in-person testimony of all analysts who performed tests the results of which the state intends to introduce into evidence at any hearing related to this case. Further, defendant hereby provides notice that he retains his right to cross-examine the analysts under State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304, Minn. 2006. 5. Documents and other tangible objects, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(3) 6. Search warrants obtained and executed regarding the case, including inventories and items seized. 7. Identification procedures including but not limited to lineups, show-up identifications, photo arrays, or the like, and details on the nature and circumstances of any and all identification procedures that become known to the government in the future. 8. Witnesses and other persons, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 9. Conviction records for all witnesses and other persons, as required to be disclosed under Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 10. Prior convictions of the Defendant or defense witnesses, to be provided as certified copies. In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to use a conviction to impeach any defense witness, including Defendant. 11. Alleged but uncharged misconduct, prior bad acts, or relationship evidence which the State intends to introduce at trial in this matter, disclosure to include police reports and any other documentation. 2 ===== PAGE 003/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM 12. Evidence related to an enhanced or aggravated sentence, as identified in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(7). In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to seek an aggravated or enhanced sentence. These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the State after the State has begun complying with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TENDING TO NEGATE OR REDUCE THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT Defendant demands that the State preserve and disclose all evidence and information known to the State which tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the Defendant, together with all evidence and information which might tend to mitigate or reduce potential punishment, as required under Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 subd. 1(6), under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and under subsequent cases. This demand includes but is not limited to the following: 1. Evidence of bias of government witnesses or any consideration given a witness in return for cooperation with the government, including any information regarding pre-existing hard feelings, arguments, grudges, and disputes between the complainant and the Defendant. 2. Information that a government witness and/or informant was under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or any other drug at the time of the observations about which the witness will testify and/or the informant informed. 3. Information tending to show the unreliability of a government witness, or which would tend to discredit the testimony of a government witness, including a request 3 ===== PAGE 004/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM for any prior inconsistent, non-corroborative, or other witness statements which the witness' trial testimony will not reflect. 4. Information—including docket numbers, dates and jurisdictions—indicating that a. a government witness has had a pending juvenile or criminal case on or since the offense in this case; b. a government witness was arrested, pleaded guilty, had a trial, or was sentenced on or since the date of the offense in the present case; c. a government witness was on juvenile or criminal parole or probation on or since the date of the offense; and d. a government witness now has or has had any other liberty interest that the witness could believe or could have believed might be favorably affected by government action. 5. Information that any government witness is or has been a police informant either at the time of the offense and/or through the day of trial, including the kind of assistance or benefits provided. "Benefit" refers to any monetary compensation, assistance of the prosecutor or the court concerning pending charges against the informant, or any other sort of consideration of value. Here, the demanded disclosure includes but is not limited to: a. the length and extent of the witness' informant status; b. the amounts that have been paid to the informant in connection with this case; c. non-monetary assistance provided or promised to the informant, including, but not limited to, assistance in avoiding or minimizing harm from charges pending against the informant either at the time of the offense and/or any other time through the day of trial; d. all statements made to the informant that promised benefits would not be provided without cooperation in connection with this case; e. the nature of assistance provided to the informant prior to this case, including the number of occasions and form of help. 6. Information which tends to show a government witness' corruption including anything in police officers' personnel files indicative of corruption. 7. Perjury by any government witness at any time, whether or not adjudicated and whether or not in connection with this case. 4 ===== PAGE 005/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM 8. Information that any government witness has made prior false accusations, including but not limited to prior complaints to the police or law enforcement agencies that did not result in a conviction. 9. Information regarding any prior "bad act" of a government witness which may bear upon the veracity of the witness with respect to the issues involved in the trial, including but not limited to the issues of self-defense or defense of others. 10. Any other information tending to show a government witness' bias in favor of the government or against the defendant or which otherwise impeaches a witness' testimony, including civilian-review-board complaints against police officers involving facts similar to those of this case, whether resolved for or against the officer. 11. Names and addresses of all witnesses who do not fully corroborate the government's case or would serve to contradict or impeach the government's evidence. 12. Any indication of threats or acts of aggression toward the defendant by the complainant or decedent, and any information that the complainant had possession of any weapons at the time of the incident. Also, any other information which would indicate that the complainant was the first aggressor and/or that the Defendant acted in self-defense. 13. Names and address of any person who: a. identified some person other than the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense; b. failed to identify the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense when asked to do so in any identification procedure; c. gave any description(s) of the perpetrator(s) of the alleged offense which in any material respect differs from my client. 14. Information known to the government which is favorable to the defense, whether or not technically admissible in court, and which is material to the issues of guilt and/or punishment. This includes all information that the Defendant was not involved in the alleged offenses and/or that the requisite elements required to prove any of the charged offenses cannot be met. Defendant further demands that all officers and investigative agencies concerned abide by their continuing obligation to discover, preserve, and disclose in writing any information or materials that might be viewed as favorable to the Defendant on the issues of suppression, guilt, or punishment, 5 ===== PAGE 006/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM either substantively, as impeachment, or as tending to discredit the government's witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) (imposing upon law enforcement and the prosecutor a "duty to learn" favorable information relating to the Defendant). These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the prosecutor, staff, or anyone investigation investigating this case after the State has begun its compliance with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND ACCESS Defendant moves the Court for an Order requiring the State 1 To preserve all evidence and other matters subject to disclosure as herein demanded and as otherwise required by Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.01. 2 To permit Defendant to have access to, inspect, reproduce, photograph, or otherwise document all disclosed items, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1 & subd. 1a(2). 3 To allow defendant to conduct reasonable tests or to provide notice and an opportunity for defense experts to observe the state’s own tests if those tests preclude further tests or experiments, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1(4)(b). 4 To assist Defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case which are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency, but which are not within the control of the prosecuting attorney, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd 2(1). 5 For an Order directing the prosecuting attorney to identify and produce any informants who supplied or contributed information to the prosecution which led to the issuance of a Complaint against the Defendant on the grounds: 6 ===== PAGE 007/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM a. The privilege of non-disclosure of any informants must give way and disclosure of the identity of an informer is required where disclosure is essential or relevant and material, and helpful to the defense of an accused, or lessens the risk of false testimony, or is necessary to secure useful testimony, or is necessary to a fair determination of the cause; or b. Disclosure is necessary as a means to afford this Defendant an opportunity to establish that if informants did exist, that the information supplied to the prosecutor by them was inaccurate or misrepresentative. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE Defendant moves the Court for an Order suppressing, particularly with respect to those items identified in the state’s notice under Rule 7.01: 1 Any and all evidence obtained as a result of a stop, search, or seizure, on the ground that such evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant’s constitutional and statutory protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 Any and all confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by Defendant, together with any evidence obtained as a result thereof, on the grounds that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. 3 Any and all identifications of Defendant and evidence of identification procedures used during the investigation, together with any evidence obtained as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation, on the ground that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. Defendant further moves this court for an order suppressing other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Defendant moves the Court for an Order restraining the prosecution from attempting to introduce at trial: 7 ===== PAGE 008/008 ===== 27-CR-22-24627 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/14/2022 3:13 PM 1 Evidence obtained as a result of stop, search, or seizure, confession or other statement by the Defendant, or identification procedures, as described above, on the grounds that the notices filed by the State are vague, ambiguous, and inspecific, all to the prejudice of the Defendant and contrary to the meaning of Minnesota R. Crim. P. 7.01. 2 Evidence that Defendant has been guilty of additional misconduct or crimes on other occasions, on the grounds that the state has not provided notice of its intent to use such evidence or, if it did, that such notice was not specific enough or failed to specify a particular exception to the general rule of exclusion. Defendant also moves for exclusion on the grounds that the evidence is not admissible under any exception to the general rule of exclusion, that such evidence is more prejudicial than probative, or that such evidence has not been proven to be clear and convincing. 3 Evidence, argument, or any other reference to prior convictions, if any, of the Defendant. 4 Any and all other evidence for which the State has failed to provide notice as required by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure Defendant further moves this court for an order excluding other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. DEMAND FOR HEARING Defendant hereby demands a contested hearing on the above motions, to be held as soon as practicable after the serving and filing hereof. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER LISA M. LOPEZ – FIRST ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER By _/s/_________________________ Raissa Carpenter Attorney License No. 396413 Attorney for Defendant 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: 612-348-9676 DATED: this 12th day of December, 2022. 8 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-12653_Finding of Incompetency and Order_2023-12-13_20240430074010.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-12653 defendant: JACOB JOSEPH SCHECH filing_type: Finding of Incompetency and Order filing_date: 2023-12-13 pages: 005 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/005 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Dec 13, 2023 5:08 pm STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CRIMINAL DIVISION Court File No. 27-CR-23-12653; State of Minnesota, 27-CR-23-15254 Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW vs. AND ORDER REGARDING COMPETENCY Jacob Joseph Schech, Defendant. This matter came administratively before the undersigned Judge of District Court on December 12, 2023, pursuant to agreement by the parties. The hearing was held remotely using the Zoom internet platform. Dan Allard, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, represented the plaintiff. Defendant was represented by Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender. Based on all the files, records and proceedings in this case, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant (date of birth 02/29/1984), was charged in MNCIS file 27-CR-23-12653 with Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle (Felony) arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on May 11, 2023; and in MNCIS file 27-CR-23-15254 with Murder – 2nd Degree – With Intent-Not Premeditated (Felony) arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on July 19, 2023. On September 21, 2023, Judge Julie Allyn found probable cause to believe that the offenses were committed and that Defendant committed them. 2. On September 21, 2023, as amended on September 27, 2023, Judge Julie Allyn ordered that Defendant undergo an evaluation to assess Defendant’s competency to proceed in this matter pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 20.01. 3. Dr. Adam Gierok, Psy.D., LP, Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, reviewed Defendant’s records, interviewed Defendant, and filed a written report with this Court. ===== PAGE 002/005 ===== 4. Dr. Adam Gierok, Psy.D., LP, Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, opined that Defendant, due to mental illness or cognitive impairment, lacks the ability to rationally consult with counsel; or lacks the ability to understand the proceedings or participate in the defense. This opinion was uncontested by either party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendant is presently incompetent to stand trial. ORDER 1. The criminal proceedings in this matter are suspended until Defendant is restored to competency to proceed. While suspended, the criminal court retains authority over the criminal case including, but not limited to, bail or conditions of release. 2. Copies of this Order shall be served upon counsel for the parties and any objections to this Order shall be filed with the Court within ten (10) days of the date of service. Christopher Filipski, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney – Criminal Division; Daniel Allard, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney – Criminal Division; Robert Speeter, Esq; Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 3. The Hennepin County Prepetition Screening Program (PSP) must conduct a prepetition screening pursuant to the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act and make a recommendation as to whether the defendant should be civilly committed under the Act. 4. PSP shall investigate whether civil commitment should be pursued and forward a recommendation in a written report supporting or not supporting civil commitment to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division (“HCAO-ASD”) within five (5) days of receiving this Order. 5. Prepetition Screening shall provide copies of the Rule 20 Competency Evaluation, the criminal Complaint(s), and the underlying police report(s) along with its written recommendation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division. 6. Defendant is ordered to cooperate with the civil commitment process including appearing at all court appearances in the civil and criminal cases. 2 ===== PAGE 003/005 ===== 7. Members of PSP shall have access to all Defendant’s files and records, including those protected by Federal regulation or law. This Order grants the members of PSP access to the records of any individual or entity that has provided observation, evaluation, diagnosis, care, treatment, or confinement of the Defendant. This Order applies to, but is not limited to, records maintained by: Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court Psychological Services; chemical dependency evaluators and treatment providers; health clinics; medical centers and hospitals; physicians; psychologists; mental health care providers; case managers; parole and probation agencies; residential and nonresidential community mental health treatment facilities or programs; regional treatment centers; the Minnesota Department of Corrections; the correctional authority for any other state; schools and school districts; law enforcement agencies; and the Court’s own records. 8. This Order also authorizes employees or officers of the record keepers described above to discuss the Defendant’s condition, history, treatment, and/or status with the members of PSP. Information collected by PSP pursuant to this Order shall be considered private data on the Defendant, but it may be included in the written report produced by PSP and forwarded to the HCAO-ASD. 9. If the Fourth Judicial District Court – Probate/Mental Health Division finds the Defendant to be mentally ill, developmentally disabled, chemically dependent, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, the Defendant may be committed directly to an appropriate safe and secure facility. The Hennepin County Sheriff shall transport the Defendant from the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center to the custody of the head of the facility named in the order for civil commitment when notified that placement is available for the Defendant. 10. The head of the treatment facility shall submit a written report addressing the Defendant’s competency to proceed in the criminal case when the Defendant has attained competency, or at least every six months. 11. Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, or the Department of Human Services Forensic Evaluation Department if the defendant is civilly committed, shall have access to Defendant's treatment records to prepare the required report(s) on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. By presentation of a copy of this order, whether mailed, sent electronically, discussed verbally, or personally delivered, the custodian of records for any agency, department, or health care provider shall release all 3 ===== PAGE 004/005 ===== information and/or records related to Defendant, including medical, psychological, behavioral, social service, probation/correctional, developmental disability, military, Social Security, employment, and educational records, to the agency requesting the records within 72 hours. This Order shall be sufficient to require an agency, department, entity, or health care provider to release the requested information and/or records related to treatment Defendant has received in connection with that facility. Any of the defendant’s records released pursuant to this order may not be disclosed to any other person without court authorization or Defendant's signed consent. 12. The criminal conditions of release remain in effect until placement at an appropriate facility can occur. 13. If Defendant is not subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, the head of the treatment facility shall hold Defendant safe and secure under the civil commitment, and shall not permit the Defendant’s release, institutional transfer, partial institutionalization status, discharge, or provisional discharge of the civil commitment until the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division has ordered conditions of release consistent with the proposed change in status. Any proposed change in status under the civil commitment requiring amended conditions of release shall be made in writing to the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division and parties at least 14 days prior to proposed change in status. The written proposal shall address the following issues 1) whether the Defendant is competent to proceed; 2) how the proposed plan will meet the Defendant’s treatment needs; and 3) public safety risks and how they will be addressed. Either party may request a hearing to address the proposed changes to the conditions of release. If no hearing is requested, the court may issue an order amending the conditions of release consistent with the proposed change in status in the civil commitment matter. 14. In the event the Fourth Judicial District Court – Mental Health Division does not commit the Defendant, then the Defendant shall be transported in secure custody back to the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division for further proceedings herein. 15. Defendant’s next appearance in Hennepin County District Court – Criminal Division on this matter and status review of Defendant’s competence to proceed is June 11, 2024. One week prior to that date, reports regarding Defendant’s competency and mental status shall be e-filed and e-served to: 4 ===== PAGE 005/005 ===== a. Fourth Judicial District Court – 4thCriminalRule20 email list; b. Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender; c. Robert Speeter, Esq; d. Christopher Filipski, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney; e. Daniel Allard, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney; f. Assistant Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division (if a commitment is ordered); g. The Commitment Defense Panel attorney appointed to represent Defendant by the Fourth Judicial District Court – Probate/Mental Health Division. 16. A copy of this Order, the Rule 20.01 Competency Evaluation, the criminal complaint(s), and the underlying police report(s) shall be delivered via email to the Prepetition Screening Program of Hennepin County’s Human Services and Public Health Department. BY THE COURT: Judge of District Court 5 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-21653_Demand or Request for Discovery_2023-10-17_20240430075015.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-21653 defendant: ROBERT WILLIAM BALSIMO filing_type: Demand or Request for Discovery filing_date: 2023-10-17 pages: 008 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT – FELONY DIVISION COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, ) ) DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION Plaintiff, ) AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE, ) AND MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION vs. ) AND OTHER RELIEF ) Robert Balsimo, ) ) MNCIS No. 27-CR-23-21653 Defendant ) * * * Defendant, by and through counsel, hereby demands preservation of, disclosure of, and access to all evidence related to the case; moves the Court for the relief specified below; and demands a hearing on the same. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE Defendant demands that the State preserve all information and evidence within the reach of the disclosures required under Rule 9.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and applicable case law. . Defendant further demands that the State disclose all such information and evidence, and that it make all disclosures required by Rule 9.01 prior to the probable cause pretrial conference in this case. Defendant demands access to all items subject to disclosure, and this access shall include, as appropriate, the opportunity to inspect, reproduce, photograph, test, interview, or otherwise document the matters disclosed. These demands apply to: 1. Investigative reports prepared by state agents or employees in the investigation or evaluation of the case, together with the original notes of the arresting officers, if any. 2. Statements, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(2). This request includes any written or recorded statement made by the Defendant or any alleged accomplice, regardless of when made, and the substance of any non-recorded oral statements by the ===== PAGE 002/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM Defendant or accomplices. This request includes recorded statements by any other person and any written record containing the substance of statements by them, whether or not they are expected to be called at trial. This request includes statements made to any member of prosecution’s staff, victim advocates, and any other person of which the government is aware or should be aware. State v. Adams, 555 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. App. 1996). It also includes disclosure of the fact that an interview with a witness took place, regardless of whether it was transcribed or whether written statements or written summaries were prepared. State v. Kaiser, 486 N.W.2d 384, 386-87 (Minn. 1992) This request also encompasses copies of recorded statements made pursuant to State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994) and any attempted recordings that for whatever alleged reason are inaudible or unavailable. 3. Audio or video records produced regarding this case, including squad video, 911 calls, radio runs, police radio communications, scout runs, police transport recordings, and record checks. 4. Reports related to examinations, tests, or expert testimony, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(4). In addition to disclosure, Defendant also demands the in-person testimony of all analysts who performed tests the results of which the state intends to introduce into evidence at any hearing related to this case. Further, defendant hereby provides notice that he retains his right to cross-examine the analysts under State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304, Minn. 2006. 5. Documents and other tangible objects, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(3) 6. Search warrants obtained and executed regarding the case, including inventories and items seized. 7. Identification procedures including but not limited to lineups, show-up identifications, photo arrays, or the like, and details on the nature and circumstances of any and all identification procedures that become known to the government in the future. 8. Witnesses and other persons, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 9. Conviction records for all witnesses and other persons, as required to be disclosed under Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 10. Prior convictions of the Defendant or defense witnesses, to be provided as certified copies. In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to use a conviction to impeach any defense witness, including Defendant. 2 ===== PAGE 003/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM 11. Alleged but uncharged misconduct, prior bad acts, or relationship evidence which the State intends to introduce at trial in this matter, disclosure to include police reports and any other documentation. 12. Evidence related to an enhanced or aggravated sentence, as identified in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(7). In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to seek an aggravated or enhanced sentence. These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the State after the State has begun complying with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TENDING TO NEGATE OR REDUCE THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT Defendant demands that the State preserve and disclose all evidence and information known to the State which tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the Defendant, together with all evidence and information which might tend to mitigate or reduce potential punishment, as required under Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 subd. 1(6), under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and under subsequent cases. This demand includes but is not limited to the following: 1. Evidence of bias of government witnesses or any consideration given a witness in return for cooperation with the government, including any information regarding pre-existing hard feelings, arguments, grudges, and disputes between the complainant and the Defendant. 2. Information that a government witness and/or informant was under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or any other drug at the time of the observations about which the witness will testify and/or the informant informed. 3 ===== PAGE 004/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM 3. Information tending to show the unreliability of a government witness, or which would tend to discredit the testimony of a government witness, including a request for any prior inconsistent, non-corroborative, or other witness statements which the witness' trial testimony will not reflect. 4. Information—including docket numbers, dates and jurisdictions—indicating that a. a government witness has had a pending juvenile or criminal case on or since the offense in this case; b. a government witness was arrested, pleaded guilty, had a trial, or was sentenced on or since the date of the offense in the present case; c. a government witness was on juvenile or criminal parole or probation on or since the date of the offense; and d. a government witness now has or has had any other liberty interest that the witness could believe or could have believed might be favorably affected by government action. 5. Information that any government witness is or has been a police informant either at the time of the offense and/or through the day of trial, including the kind of assistance or benefits provided. "Benefit" refers to any monetary compensation, assistance of the prosecutor or the court concerning pending charges against the informant, or any other sort of consideration of value. Here, the demanded disclosure includes but is not limited to: a. the length and extent of the witness' informant status; b. the amounts that have been paid to the informant in connection with this case; c. non-monetary assistance provided or promised to the informant, including, but not limited to, assistance in avoiding or minimizing harm from charges pending against the informant either at the time of the offense and/or any other time through the day of trial; d. all statements made to the informant that promised benefits would not be provided without cooperation in connection with this case; e. the nature of assistance provided to the informant prior to this case, including the number of occasions and form of help. 6. Information which tends to show a government witness' corruption including anything in police officers' personnel files indicative of corruption. 4 ===== PAGE 005/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM 7. Perjury by any government witness at any time, whether or not adjudicated and whether or not in connection with this case. 8. Information that any government witness has made prior false accusations, including but not limited to prior complaints to the police or law enforcement agencies that did not result in a conviction. 9. Information regarding any prior "bad act" of a government witness which may bear upon the veracity of the witness with respect to the issues involved in the trial, including but not limited to the issues of self-defense or defense of others. 10. Any other information tending to show a government witness' bias in favor of the government or against the defendant or which otherwise impeaches a witness' testimony, including civilian-review-board complaints against police officers involving facts similar to those of this case, whether resolved for or against the officer. 11. Names and addresses of all witnesses who do not fully corroborate the government's case or would serve to contradict or impeach the government's evidence. 12. Any indication of threats or acts of aggression toward the defendant by the complainant or decedent, and any information that the complainant had possession of any weapons at the time of the incident. Also, any other information which would indicate that the complainant was the first aggressor and/or that the Defendant acted in self-defense. 13. Names and address of any person who: a. identified some person other than the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense; b. failed to identify the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense when asked to do so in any identification procedure; c. gave any description(s) of the perpetrator(s) of the alleged offense which in any material respect differs from my client. 14. Information known to the government which is favorable to the defense, whether or not technically admissible in court, and which is material to the issues of guilt and/or punishment. This includes all information that the Defendant was not involved in the alleged offenses and/or that the requisite elements required to prove any of the charged offenses cannot be met. 5 ===== PAGE 006/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM Defendant further demands that all officers and investigative agencies concerned abide by their continuing obligation to discover, preserve, and disclose in writing any information or materials that might be viewed as favorable to the Defendant on the issues of suppression, guilt, or punishment, either substantively, as impeachment, or as tending to discredit the government's witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) (imposing upon law enforcement and the prosecutor a "duty to learn" favorable information relating to the Defendant). These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the prosecutor, staff, or anyone investigation investigating this case after the State has begun its compliance with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND ACCESS Defendant moves the Court for an Order requiring the State 1 To preserve all evidence and other matters subject to disclosure as herein demanded and as otherwise required by Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.01. 2 To permit Defendant to have access to, inspect, reproduce, photograph, or otherwise document all disclosed items, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1 & subd. 1a(2). 3 To allow defendant to conduct reasonable tests or to provide notice and an opportunity for defense experts to observe the state’s own tests if those tests preclude further tests or experiments, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1(4)(b). 4 To assist Defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case which are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency, but which are not within the control of the prosecuting attorney, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd 2(1). 6 ===== PAGE 007/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM 5 For an Order directing the prosecuting attorney to identify and produce any informants who supplied or contributed information to the prosecution which led to the issuance of a Complaint against the Defendant on the grounds: a. The privilege of non-disclosure of any informants must give way and disclosure of the identity of an informer is required where disclosure is essential or relevant and material, and helpful to the defense of an accused, or lessens the risk of false testimony, or is necessary to secure useful testimony, or is necessary to a fair determination of the cause; or b. Disclosure is necessary as a means to afford this Defendant an opportunity to establish that if informants did exist, that the information supplied to the prosecutor by them was inaccurate or misrepresentative. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE Defendant moves the Court for an Order suppressing, particularly with respect to those items identified in the state’s notice under Rule 7.01: 1 Any and all evidence obtained as a result of a stop, search, or seizure, on the ground that such evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant’s constitutional and statutory protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 Any and all confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by Defendant, together with any evidence obtained as a result thereof, on the grounds that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. 3 Any and all identifications of Defendant and evidence of identification procedures used during the investigation, together with any evidence obtained as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation, on the ground that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. Defendant further moves this court for an order suppressing other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 7 ===== PAGE 008/008 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/17/2023 1:44 PM Defendant moves the Court for an Order restraining the prosecution from attempting to introduce at trial: 1 Evidence obtained as a result of stop, search, or seizure, confession or other statement by the Defendant, or identification procedures, as described above, on the grounds that the notices filed by the State are vague, ambiguous, and inspecific, all to the prejudice of the Defendant and contrary to the meaning of Minnesota R. Crim. P. 7.01. 2 Evidence that Defendant has been guilty of additional misconduct or crimes on other occasions, on the grounds that the state has not provided notice of its intent to use such evidence or, if it did, that such notice was not specific enough or failed to specify a particular exception to the general rule of exclusion. Defendant also moves for exclusion on the grounds that the evidence is not admissible under any exception to the general rule of exclusion, that such evidence is more prejudicial than probative, or that such evidence has not been proven to be clear and convincing. 3 Evidence, argument, or any other reference to prior convictions, if any, of the Defendant. 4 Any and all other evidence for which the State has failed to provide notice as required by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure Defendant further moves this court for an order excluding other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. DEMAND FOR HEARING Defendant hereby demands a contested hearing on the above motions, to be held as soon as practicable after the serving and filing hereof. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER MICHAEL BERGER - CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER By /s/ Raissa Carpenter Attorney ID No. 396413 Attorney for Defendant 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Dated: This 11th, of October, 2023. 8 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-21653_Finding of Incompetency and Order_2023-11-15_20240430075012.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-21653 defendant: ROBERT WILLIAM BALSIMO filing_type: Finding of Incompetency and Order filing_date: 2023-11-15 pages: 005 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/005 ===== Filed in District Court State of Minnesota Nov 15, 2023 9:47 am STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CRIMINAL DIVISION Court File No. 27-CR-23-21653; State of Minnesota, 27-CR-23-12404 Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW vs. AND ORDER REGARDING COMPETENCY Robert William Balsimo, Defendant. This matter came before the undersigned Referee of District Court on November 14, 2023. The hearing was held remotely using the Zoom internet platform. Tom Arneson, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, represented the plaintiff. Defendant appeared in custody and was represented by Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender. Based on all the files, records and proceedings in this case, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant (date of birth 09/18/1981), was charged in MNCIS file 27-CR-23-21653 with Domestic Assault (Felony) arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on October 8, 2023; and in MNCIS file 27-CR-23-12404 with Speed 60 Zone 88/60 (Petty Misdemeanor), No Proof MV Insurance (Misdemeanor), Driving After Revocation (Misdemeanor), and Failure to Obey a Lawful Order (Misdemeanor) arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on June 5, 2023. On October 11, 2023, Judge Lisa Janzen found probable cause to believe that the felony offense was committed and that Defendant committed it. 2. On October 11, 2023, Judge Lisa Janzen ordered that Defendant undergo an evaluation to assess Defendant’s competency to proceed in this matter pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 20.01. 3. Dr. Catherine A. Carlson, Psy.D., LP, Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, reviewed Defendant’s records, interviewed Defendant, and filed a written report with this Court. 4. Dr. Catherine A. Carlson, Psy.D., LP, Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, opined that Defendant, due to mental illness or cognitive impairment, lacks the ability ===== PAGE 002/005 ===== to rationally consult with counsel; or lacks the ability to understand the proceedings or participate in the defense. This opinion was uncontested by either party. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendant is presently incompetent to stand trial. The misdemeanor charges must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 20.01. ORDER 1. The criminal proceedings in this matter are suspended until Defendant is restored to competency to proceed. While suspended, the criminal court retains authority over the criminal case including, but not limited to, bail or conditions of release. 2. Copies of this Order shall be served upon counsel for the parties and any objections to this Order shall be filed with the Court within ten (10) days of the date of service. Isaiah Ellison, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney – Criminal Division; Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender 3. The Hennepin County Prepetition Screening Program (PSP) must conduct a prepetition screening pursuant to the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act and make a recommendation as to whether the defendant should be civilly committed under the Act. 4. PSP shall investigate whether civil commitment should be pursued and forward a recommendation in a written report supporting or not supporting civil commitment to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division (“HCAO-ASD”) within five (5) days of receiving this Order. 5. Prepetition Screening shall provide copies of the Rule 20 Competency Evaluation, the criminal Complaint(s), and the underlying police report(s) along with its written recommendation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division. 6. Defendant is ordered to cooperate with the civil commitment process including appearing at all court appearances in the civil and criminal cases. 7. Members of PSP shall have access to all Defendant’s files and records, including those protected by Federal regulation or law. This Order grants the members of PSP access to the records of any individual or entity that has provided observation, evaluation, diagnosis, care, treatment, or confinement of the Defendant. This Order applies to, but is not limited to, records 2 ===== PAGE 003/005 ===== maintained by: Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court Psychological Services; chemical dependency evaluators and treatment providers; health clinics; medical centers and hospitals; physicians; psychologists; mental health care providers; case managers; parole and probation agencies; residential and nonresidential community mental health treatment facilities or programs; regional treatment centers; the Minnesota Department of Corrections; the correctional authority for any other state; schools and school districts; law enforcement agencies; and the Court’s own records. 8. This Order also authorizes employees or officers of the record keepers described above to discuss the Defendant’s condition, history, treatment, and/or status with the members of PSP. Information collected by PSP pursuant to this Order shall be considered private data on the Defendant, but it may be included in the written report produced by PSP and forwarded to the HCAO-ASD. 9. If the Fourth Judicial District Court – Probate/Mental Health Division finds the Defendant to be mentally ill, developmentally disabled, chemically dependent, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, the Defendant may be committed directly to an appropriate safe and secure facility. The Hennepin County Sheriff shall transport the Defendant from the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center to the custody of the head of the facility named in the order for civil commitment when notified that placement is available for the Defendant. 10. The head of the treatment facility shall submit a written report addressing the Defendant’s competency to proceed in the criminal case when the Defendant has attained competency, or at least every six months. 11. Psychological Services of Hennepin County District Court, or the Department of Human Services Forensic Evaluation Department if the defendant is civilly committed, shall have access to Defendant's treatment records to prepare the required report(s) on the defendant’s mental condition with an opinion as to competency to proceed. By presentation of a copy of this order, whether mailed, sent electronically, discussed verbally, or personally delivered, the custodian of records for any agency, department, or health care provider shall release all information and/or records related to Defendant, including medical, psychological, behavioral, social service, probation/correctional, developmental disability, military, Social Security, employment, and educational records, to the agency requesting the records within 72 hours. This Order shall be sufficient to require an agency, department, entity, or health care provider 3 ===== PAGE 004/005 ===== to release the requested information and/or records related to treatment Defendant has received in connection with that facility. Any of the defendant’s records released pursuant to this order may not be disclosed to any other person without court authorization or Defendant's signed consent. 12. The criminal conditions of release remain in effect until placement at an appropriate facility can occur. 13. If Defendant is not subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 253B.18, the head of the treatment facility shall hold Defendant safe and secure under the civil commitment, and shall not permit the Defendant’s release, institutional transfer, partial institutionalization status, discharge, or provisional discharge of the civil commitment until the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division has ordered conditions of release consistent with the proposed change in status. Any proposed change in status under the civil commitment requiring amended conditions of release shall be made in writing to the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division and parties at least 14 days prior to proposed change in status. The written proposal shall address the following issues 1) whether the Defendant is competent to proceed; 2) how the proposed plan will meet the Defendant’s treatment needs; and 3) public safety risks and how they will be addressed. Either party may request a hearing to address the proposed changes to the conditions of release. If no hearing is requested, the court may issue an order amending the conditions of release consistent with the proposed change in status in the civil commitment matter. 14. In the event the Fourth Judicial District Court – Mental Health Division does not commit the Defendant, then the Defendant shall be transported in secure custody back to the Fourth Judicial District Court – Criminal Division for further proceedings herein. 15. Defendant’s next appearance in Hennepin County District Court – Criminal Division on this matter and status review of Defendant’s competence to proceed is May 14, 2024. One week prior to that date, reports regarding Defendant’s competency and mental status shall be e-filed and e-served to: a. Fourth Judicial District Court – 4thCriminalRule20 email list; b. Raissa Carpenter, Assistant Hennepin County Public Defender (raissa.carpenter@hennepin.us); c. Isaiah Ellison, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney (Isaiah.Ellison@hennepin.us); 4 ===== PAGE 005/005 ===== d. Assistant Hennepin County Attorney’s Office – Adult Services Division (if a commitment is ordered); e. The Commitment Defense Panel attorney appointed to represent Defendant by the Fourth Judicial District Court – Probate/Mental Health Division. 16. A copy of this Order, the Rule 20.01 Competency Evaluation, the criminal complaint(s), and the underlying police report(s) shall be delivered via email to the Prepetition Screening Program of Hennepin County’s Human Services and Public Health Department. Order Recommended By: BY THE COURT: Referee of District Court Judge of District Court 5 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-21653_Notice of Motion and Motion_2023-10-27_20240430075014.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-21653 defendant: ROBERT WILLIAM BALSIMO filing_type: Notice of Motion and Motion filing_date: 2023-10-27 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/27/2023 4:29 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, Court File No.: 27-CR-23-21653 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND vs. MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE Robert William Balsimo, Defendant. TO: THE HONORABLE LISA K. JANZEN, JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT; MARY F. MORIARTY, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY; AND ISAIAH ELLISON, ASSISTANT HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY, C2100 GOVERNMENT CENTER, 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as soon as counsel may be heard, Mr. Robert William Balsimo, by and through the below-signed attorney, will move this court for an order modifying his conditions of release. Pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.02, subd. 4,1 “[t]he court must review conditions of release on request of any party.” Mr. Balsimo requests that the Court schedule an appearance for him to be heard on the conditions of his release. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1 When a criminal case is suspended pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, the Court still retains authority over the criminal case, including over bail and conditions of release. Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 3(c). ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 10/27/2023 4:29 PM By: Date: _October 27, 2023__ ___ _____ Raissa R. Carpenter (#0396413) Assistant Public Defender Hennepin County Public Defender’s Office 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1600 Office: 612-348-9676 Fax: (612) 348-6179 Email: raissa.carpenter@hennepin.us 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-21653_Notice of Motion and Motion_2023-12-12_20240430075010.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-21653 defendant: ROBERT WILLIAM BALSIMO filing_type: Notice of Motion and Motion filing_date: 2023-12-12 pages: 002 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/002 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/12/2023 5:49 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, Court File No.: 27-CR-23-21653 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND vs. MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE Robert William Balsimo, Defendant. TO: THE HONORABLE LISA K. JANZEN, JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT; MARY F. MORIARTY, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY; AND ISAIAH ELLISON, ASSISTANT HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY, C2100 GOVERNMENT CENTER, 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as soon as counsel may be heard, Mr. Robert William Balsimo, by and through the below-signed attorney, will move this court for an order modifying his conditions of release. Pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.02, subd. 4,1 “[t]he court must review conditions of release on request of any party.” Mr. Balsimo requests that the Court schedule an appearance for him to be heard on the conditions of his release. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1 When a criminal case is suspended pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, the Court still retains authority over the criminal case, including over bail and conditions of release. Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 3(c). ===== PAGE 002/002 ===== 27-CR-23-21653 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 12/12/2023 5:49 PM By: Date: _December 12, 2023__ ___ _____ Raissa R. Carpenter (#0396413) Assistant Public Defender Hennepin County Public Defender’s Office 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415-1600 Office: 612-348-9676 Fax: (612) 348-6179 Email: raissa.carpenter@hennepin.us 2 ===== DOC: MCRO_27-CR-23-5751_Demand or Request for Discovery_2023-03-27_20240430073244.pdf ===== --- meta case_number: 27-CR-23-5751 defendant: Lucas Patrick Kraskey filing_type: Demand or Request for Discovery filing_date: 2023-03-27 pages: 008 --- end meta ===== PAGE 001/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT – FELONY DIVISION COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, ) ) DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION Plaintiff, ) AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE, ) AND MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION vs. ) AND OTHER RELIEF ) Lucas Kraskey ) MNCIS No. 27-CR-23-5751 ) Defendant. ) * * * Defendant, by and through counsel, hereby demands preservation of, disclosure of, and access to all evidence related to the case; moves the Court for the relief specified below; and demands a hearing on the same. DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE Defendant demands that the State preserve all information and evidence within the reach of the disclosures required under Rule 9.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and applicable case law. Defendant further demands that the State disclose all such information and evidence, and that it make all disclosures required by Rule 9.01 prior to the probable cause pretrial conference in this case. Defendant demands access to all items subject to disclosure, and this access shall include, as appropriate, the opportunity to inspect, reproduce, photograph, test, interview, or otherwise document the matters disclosed. These demands apply to: 1. Investigative reports prepared by state agents or employees in the investigation or evaluation of the case, together with the original notes of the arresting officers, if any. 2. Statements, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(2). This request includes any written or recorded statement made by the Defendant or any alleged accomplice, regardless of when made, and the substance of any non-recorded oral statements by the Defendant or accomplices. This request includes recorded statements by any other ===== PAGE 002/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM person and any written record containing the substance of statements by them, whether or not they are expected to be called at trial. This request includes statements made to any member of prosecution’s staff, victim advocates, and any other person of which the government is aware or should be aware. State v. Adams, 555 N.W.2d 310 (Minn. App. 1996). It also includes disclosure of the fact that an interview with a witness took place, regardless of whether it was transcribed or whether written statements or written summaries were prepared. State v. Kaiser, 486 N.W.2d 384, 386-87 (Minn. 1992) This request also encompasses copies of recorded statements made pursuant to State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994) and any attempted recordings that for whatever alleged reason are inaudible or unavailable. 3. Audio or video records produced regarding this case, including squad video, 911 calls, radio runs, police radio communications, scout runs, police transport recordings, and record checks. 4. Reports related to examinations, tests, or expert testimony, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(4). In addition to disclosure, Defendant also demands the in-person testimony of all analysts who performed tests the results of which the state intends to introduce into evidence at any hearing related to this case. Further, defendant hereby provides notice that he retains his right to cross-examine the analysts under State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304, Minn. 2006. 5. Documents and other tangible objects, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(3) 6. Search warrants obtained and executed regarding the case, including inventories and items seized. 7. Identification procedures including but not limited to lineups, show-up identifications, photo arrays, or the like, and details on the nature and circumstances of any and all identification procedures that become known to the government in the future. 8. Witnesses and other persons, as fully described in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 9. Conviction records for all witnesses and other persons, as required to be disclosed under Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1). 10. Prior convictions of the Defendant or defense witnesses, to be provided as certified copies. In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to use a conviction to impeach any defense witness, including Defendant. 2 ===== PAGE 003/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM 11. Alleged but uncharged misconduct, prior bad acts, or relationship evidence which the State intends to introduce at trial in this matter, disclosure to include police reports and any other documentation. 12. Evidence related to an enhanced or aggravated sentence, as identified in Rule 9.01, subd. 1(7). In addition to disclosure, defendant also demands notice if the state intends to seek an aggravated or enhanced sentence. These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the State after the State has begun complying with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; DEMAND FOR PRESERVATION AND DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TENDING TO NEGATE OR REDUCE THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT Defendant demands that the State preserve and disclose all evidence and information known to the State which tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the Defendant, together with all evidence and information which might tend to mitigate or reduce potential punishment, as required under Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 subd. 1(6), under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and under subsequent cases. This demand includes but is not limited to the following: 1. Evidence of bias of government witnesses or any consideration given a witness in return for cooperation with the government, including any information regarding pre-existing hard feelings, arguments, grudges, and disputes between the complainant and the Defendant. 2. Information that a government witness and/or informant was under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or any other drug at the time of the observations about which the witness will testify and/or the informant informed. 3. Information tending to show the unreliability of a government witness, or which would tend to discredit the testimony of a government witness, including a request 3 ===== PAGE 004/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM for any prior inconsistent, non-corroborative, or other witness statements which the witness' trial testimony will not reflect. 4. Information—including docket numbers, dates and jurisdictions—indicating that a. a government witness has had a pending juvenile or criminal case on or since the offense in this case; b. a government witness was arrested, pleaded guilty, had a trial, or was sentenced on or since the date of the offense in the present case; c. a government witness was on juvenile or criminal parole or probation on or since the date of the offense; and d. a government witness now has or has had any other liberty interest that the witness could believe or could have believed might be favorably affected by government action. 5. Information that any government witness is or has been a police informant either at the time of the offense and/or through the day of trial, including the kind of assistance or benefits provided. "Benefit" refers to any monetary compensation, assistance of the prosecutor or the court concerning pending charges against the informant, or any other sort of consideration of value. Here, the demanded disclosure includes but is not limited to: a. the length and extent of the witness' informant status; b. the amounts that have been paid to the informant in connection with this case; c. non-monetary assistance provided or promised to the informant, including, but not limited to, assistance in avoiding or minimizing harm from charges pending against the informant either at the time of the offense and/or any other time through the day of trial; d. all statements made to the informant that promised benefits would not be provided without cooperation in connection with this case; e. the nature of assistance provided to the informant prior to this case, including the number of occasions and form of help. 6. Information which tends to show a government witness' corruption including anything in police officers' personnel files indicative of corruption. 7. Perjury by any government witness at any time, whether or not adjudicated and whether or not in connection with this case. 4 ===== PAGE 005/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM 8. Information that any government witness has made prior false accusations, including but not limited to prior complaints to the police or law enforcement agencies that did not result in a conviction. 9. Information regarding any prior "bad act" of a government witness which may bear upon the veracity of the witness with respect to the issues involved in the trial, including but not limited to the issues of self-defense or defense of others. 10. Any other information tending to show a government witness' bias in favor of the government or against the defendant or which otherwise impeaches a witness' testimony, including civilian-review-board complaints against police officers involving facts similar to those of this case, whether resolved for or against the officer. 11. Names and addresses of all witnesses who do not fully corroborate the government's case or would serve to contradict or impeach the government's evidence. 12. Any indication of threats or acts of aggression toward the defendant by the complainant or decedent, and any information that the complainant had possession of any weapons at the time of the incident. Also, any other information which would indicate that the complainant was the first aggressor and/or that the Defendant acted in self-defense. 13. Names and address of any person who: a. identified some person other than the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense; b. failed to identify the Defendant as a perpetrator of the alleged offense when asked to do so in any identification procedure; c. gave any description(s) of the perpetrator(s) of the alleged offense which in any material respect differs from my client. 14. Information known to the government which is favorable to the defense, whether or not technically admissible in court, and which is material to the issues of guilt and/or punishment. This includes all information that the Defendant was not involved in the alleged offenses and/or that the requisite elements required to prove any of the charged offenses cannot be met. Defendant further demands that all officers and investigative agencies concerned abide by their continuing obligation to discover, preserve, and disclose in writing any information or materials that might be viewed as favorable to the Defendant on the issues of suppression, guilt, or punishment, 5 ===== PAGE 006/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM either substantively, as impeachment, or as tending to discredit the government's witnesses. Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) (imposing upon law enforcement and the prosecutor a "duty to learn" favorable information relating to the Defendant). These requests encompass all information or evidence known to the prosecutor on this case personally or if known to any other prosecutor or law enforcement agent, as well as information and evidence about which the prosecutor on this case could acquire actual knowledge through the exercise of due diligence in responding to these inquiries. Lastly, the defense demands disclosure of all audio or video files on CD ROM or DVD ROM disc, and demands that the state provide any and all software or other files necessary to open, view or play such disc(s). This demand for preservation and disclosure, in its entirety, continues until final disposition of this case. It therefore encompasses any additional information subject to disclosure that becomes known to the prosecutor, staff, or anyone investigation investigating this case after the State has begun its compliance with discovery rules, orders or defense requests. Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.03, subd. 2; MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND ACCESS Defendant moves the Court for an Order requiring the State 1 To preserve all evidence and other matters subject to disclosure as herein demanded and as otherwise required by Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.01. 2 To permit Defendant to have access to, inspect, reproduce, photograph, or otherwise document all disclosed items, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1 & subd. 1a(2). 3 To allow defendant to conduct reasonable tests or to provide notice and an opportunity for defense experts to observe the state’s own tests if those tests preclude further tests or experiments, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P 9.01, subd. 1(4)(b). 4 To assist Defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case which are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency, but which are not within the control of the prosecuting attorney, as described in Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd 2(1). 5 For an Order directing the prosecuting attorney to identify and produce any informants who supplied or contributed information to the prosecution which led to the issuance of a Complaint against the Defendant on the grounds: 6 ===== PAGE 007/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM a. The privilege of non-disclosure of any informants must give way and disclosure of the identity of an informer is required where disclosure is essential or relevant and material, and helpful to the defense of an accused, or lessens the risk of false testimony, or is necessary to secure useful testimony, or is necessary to a fair determination of the cause; or b. Disclosure is necessary as a means to afford this Defendant an opportunity to establish that if informants did exist, that the information supplied to the prosecutor by them was inaccurate or misrepresentative. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE Defendant moves the Court for an Order suppressing, particularly with respect to those items identified in the state’s notice under Rule 7.01: 1 Any and all evidence obtained as a result of a stop, search, or seizure, on the ground that such evidence was obtained in violation of Defendant’s constitutional and statutory protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2 Any and all confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by Defendant, together with any evidence obtained as a result thereof, on the grounds that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. 3 Any and all identifications of Defendant and evidence of identification procedures used during the investigation, together with any evidence obtained as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation, on the ground that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights. Defendant further moves this court for an order suppressing other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Defendant moves the Court for an Order restraining the prosecution from attempting to introduce at trial: 1 Evidence obtained as a result of stop, search, or seizure, confession or other statement by the Defendant, or identification procedures, as described above, on the grounds that the notices filed by the State are vague, ambiguous, and inspecific, all to the prejudice of the Defendant and contrary to the meaning of Minnesota R. Crim. P. 7.01. 7 ===== PAGE 008/008 ===== 27-CR-23-5751 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/27/2023 10:23 AM 2 Evidence that Defendant has been guilty of additional misconduct or crimes on other occasions, on the grounds that the state has not provided notice of its intent to use such evidence or, if it did, that such notice was not specific enough or failed to specify a particular exception to the general rule of exclusion. Defendant also moves for exclusion on the grounds that the evidence is not admissible under any exception to the general rule of exclusion, that such evidence is more prejudicial than probative, or that such evidence has not been proven to be clear and convincing. 3 Evidence, argument, or any other reference to prior convictions, if any, of the Defendant. 4 Any and all other evidence for which the State has failed to provide notice as required by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure Defendant further moves this court for an order excluding other evidence or granting any relief that the court may require to ensure a fair and expeditious trial on this matter. DEMAND FOR HEARING Defendant hereby demands a contested hearing on the above motions, to be held as soon as practicable after the serving and filing hereof. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER Kassius O. Benson - CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER By: /s/ Raissa Carpenter Attorney License No. 396413 Attorney for Defendant 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 8