A17-0200 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS. State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. APPELLANT'S BRIEF Deirdre Evavold, Appellant. ‘This is the appellant's brief in an appeal from conviction in Dakota County district court for six felony charges of Deprivation of Custodial/Parental Rights Minn. Stat. §609.26. District Court File No. 1YHA-CR-15-4227. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 19, 2013, Gianna and Samantha Rucki, children of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and David Rucki ran away. They were located on November 18, 2015 at a horse ranch in northern Minnesota. The State charged Appellant with multiple counts of interfering with the custody or parental rights of another in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.26, subd. 1. ‘A jury found her guilty of six counts and the district court, Judge Asphaug, sentenced her to two concurrent stayed year-and-a-day prison terms and placed her on probation for two consecutive four year terms. Evavold has appealed to challenge her convictions and sentence.Apr. 19, 2013: Nov. 23, 2015: Dec. 11, 2015 Dec. 13, 2015 Dec. 15, 2015 Jan. 11,2016 Feb. 21, 2016 March 1, 2016 March 7, 2016 May 12, 2016 June 14, 2016 June 24, 2016 June 30, 2016 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Gianna and Samantha Rucki ran away while in the custody of paternal aunt Tammy Love. Police located runaway teens. ‘The state charged Appellant Deirdre Evavold with 2 counts of Deprivation of Custodial/Parental Rights (Conceal Minor) First Discovery Request by Appellant Notice of Case Assignment 19HA-CR-15-4227 Assigned to Judge Asphaug (All 4 cases were assigned exclusively to Judge Asphaug) First Appearance- Release/Interim Conditions Ordered Criminal Complaint filed with Hastings PD and Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board against Dakota Co. ‘Attorneys: James Backstory, Philip Prokopowiez and Kathryn Keena for illegally withholding readily available, free, electronic data. Discovery Request Jeff Long, City of Lakeville Chief of Police Omnibus Hearing Discovery Review Hearing-Evidence still not provided. Continued to fraudulently bill for evidence and indicated that it must be prepaid. Notice of Motion and Motion for Use Immunity submitted by the state Appellant attempted to file a Witness Tampering Complaint against David Rucki and former Star Tribune reporter Michael Brodkorb. Lakeville PD refused to accept. Filed criminal complaint against Dakota County attorneys with Hastings Police Chief Bryan Schafer. Interview with SVR by Detective Coughlin, Lakeville PD, David Rucki and Tammy Love coerced and intimidated SVR into recanting her testimonyJuly 18, 2016 July 18, 2016 July 22, 2016 Aug. 25, 2016 Sept. 1, 2016 Sept. 12016 Sept. 15, 2016 Sept. 19, 2016 Sept. 20, 2016 Sept. 22, 2016 Sept. 22, 2016 Sept. 26, 2016 Use Immunity Hearing-Judge Asphaug ordered Appellant to testify at Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s trial scheduled on 7-26-16. Letter from Terrence E. Conkel, Chief Judge of the First Judicial District. Any allegations that an Attorney has acted unethically can be made to the Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility. Based on your letter to the Hastings Chief of Police, it is evident you are aware that any allegations of criminal conduct are made to the local law enforcement agency. I will not conduct an investigation, as you have requested, or take further action in this matter. Released from subpoena to testify in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki trial. The state filed an amended complaint due to coerced testimony to Lakeville PD. David Rucki’s daughter has told police that her father was not abusive to her, nor did David’s daughter witness her father be abusive to any of her siblings. Four additional felony charges of deprivation of parental rights, Received a portion of evidence from Dakota County Attomeys® Office Witness List from the state Formal complaint against Lakeville Police Chief Jeff Long & Deputy Chief of Police John Kornmann Formal Witness Tampering Criminal Complaint against David Rucki and former Star Tribune reporter Michael Brodkorb Second Criminal complaint against Dakota Co. Attomeys filed with Hastings PD States Notice of Motion and Motions in Limine Reported Dakota Co. Attomey James Backstrom's Obstruction of Justice in Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227 to The St. Cloud Division of The FBI to investigate local officials. Informed FBI of missing US Marshal evidence. Jury Trial commenced with Judge Asphaug presiding. 9/26 - 9/29/2016Sept. 28, 2016 Sept. 29, 2016 Oct. 6, 2016 Nov. 10, 2016 Nov. 18, 2016 Dec. 13, 2016 Jan. 24, 2017 Feb. 7, 2017 Filed criminal complaint against Dakota Co. Attomey’s Office with Dakota County Sheriff’ s Office Captain Daniel Bianconi and Capiain Jim Rogers The jury found Appellant guilty of six counts of depriving another of custodial or parental rights. Appellant arrested and transferred to Ramsey County Correctional Facility Release on own Recognizance letter to Judge Asphaug, Dakota Co, Attorney, and District Court Administrator Brian Jones ‘No Response Sentencing- Judge Asphaug-Denied request for a new trial based on witness tampering. Request for Flectronic Home Monitoring letter from Appellant received by Judge Asphaug. Judge Asphaug requested a response from the state, Letter from state opposing EHM Released from RCCF ‘Appealed from the judgmentISSUES PRESENTED 1. APPELLANT WAS WRONGFULLY CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF PARENTAL DEPRIVATION MN Statute 609.26 Depriving Another of Custodial or Parental Rights subd. states: whoever intentionally conceals a minor child from the child's parent where: the action manifests an intent substantially to deprive that parent of parental rights or conceals a minor child from another person having the right to parenting time or custody where the action manifests an intent to substantially deprive that person of tights to parenting time or custody may be charged with a felony. Subd. 2 states: It is an affirmative defense, if'a person charged under subdivision 1 proves that: (1) the person reasonably believed the action taken was necessary to protect the child from physical or sexual assault or substantial emotional harm. The affirmative defense did not need to be raised as there was substantial evidence supporting the affirmative defense. The state had all of the evidence that no crime was committed and that the girls ran away because of abuse. Lakeville Officer Hakanson's report says that Gianna and Samantha Rucki ran away because of judge David Knutson’s malicious court order. Incident Date last seen: 041913 Time last seen 1930 Seen by: Tammy Love Cause of absence: upset because court ordered her and her sister to live with aunt, Officer: RJ Hakanson Reported Date: 041913 Subject Name (Last) Rucki (First Middle) Samantha Victoria DOB: 062498 Age: 14 Sex: Female Race: White ICR: 13001278 LAKEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT\ CASE/INCIDENT NUMBER 13001278 SUPPLEMENT REPORT OFFICER J. Dronen 4816 CURRENT DATE 112115 We arrived at 20916 140th St and were met by Doug Dahlen just outside the residence. Sheriff Walvatne and Sgt. Cooks advised him of who we were and that‘we wanted to ask him some questions. I advised Doug that Inspector Moran and 1 were investigating a case involving two missing girls that we believed may have been brought to the ranch a few years earlier due to a contentious divorce process. At that time Doug advised us that the girls were in the house. I asked Doug how they got here, and he stated that their mother had brought them there a few years earlier. I asked him when he had last heard from their mother, and he had told me that it was over a year ago. He invited us inside and called Samantha and Gianna down from the upstairs bedroom, Samantha and Gianna came down, and immediately told us that they would not go back to their father. We told them that our first concern was their safety. I did ask them about the last time that they had heard from their mother, and they told me that they would not say anything without a lawyer. I asked Inspector Moran to stay with them, and I stepped outside to contact Lt. Polinski. I advised him that we had Samantha and Gianna, and asked him to start making calls to determine where they should be brought. I also contacted Detective Helmueller and advised them that we had the girls and asked them to respond to the scene as well. Upon their arrival, I asked Detective Coughlin to stay with the girls, as Doug had advised me that Samantha had issues with males. Both girls made it very clear to me that if they were forced to go with their dad, they would run again. The girls told me they had bad experiences with the therapist they were mandated to see before they ran. They also told me the guardian ad litem was never concerned about their thoughts or feelings. They said the guardian ad litem asked them questions about where their mom was hiding her money and wanted to know if'she was putting the money overseas. The girls stated no one ever listened to them. LAKEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENT REPORT CASEV/INCIDENT NUMBER 13001278 OFFICER K. Coughlin #4812; CURRENT DATE: 112315; CURRENT TIME: 0930 (See Full Report Attached)‘Once the girls were back in their father’s custody in June of 2016, SVR told police a very different story. SVR told police investigators that her father and aunt made her come in to "recant.” (Lakeville Police Dept. Statement, June 30, 2016) When asked "[w]hen you say constantly living in it what does that mean? SVR responded, "[nJo one wants to let it down, it's always being brought up, I never can get away from it. * (Id. at 21) ‘When asked if she was forced to be there, SVR told Detective Kelli Coughlin that, ‘There is paperwork all over the house with it, I can't get away from it “it’s definitely not on free will choice." (Id.) SVR stated that her dad and aunt Tammy “basically said I have to [come in for a statement}, and that I have to be here and I have to recant everything I said and . . . that's the way it's gonna be and they made me feel really guilty about not doing it, I started crying." (Id.) She minimized the physical abuse she had witnessed. (Id. at 2.) She recounted that her father broke the organ leg, but was not encouraged to elaborate by detective Coughlin. (Id. at 3.) SVR did not mention that her father chased her mother around with the organ leg. This time, she told police her dad was never physical with her. That he only "grabbed" her leg, instead of the sexual rubbing she described previously. During the interview, SVR back-peddled on her prior claims of sexual advances, now saying her father only made "inappropriate comments." In the same police interview with Coughlin, Samantha Rucki took Judge Knutson to task, “I’m not a fan of Judge Knutson, I don’t want to hear about that guy.” she said, “Honestly. He made such bad decisions and it’s not even, he should I don’t care what you guys want to say to that. The decisions made by whoever in the court were so horrendous that they shouldn’t even be allowed to do it anymore. You can’t make a mistake like this and ruin people’s lives and then think it’s ok. Gilbertson [a therapist appointed by Judge Knutson] and Friedrich [the guardian ad litem appointed by Knutson] and him, you don’t just get to screw around with someone's life to likepractice or to just try and test out different theories on you can do this (inaudible) a bunch of test dummies or a bunch of things.” SVR's testimony in court was again different than her previously made statements. On. the stand, SVR told the Court she was not told to "recant" and she had not been in her right state of mind when she made the statement to police. She also claimed to not remember the incident with the organ leg and said her dad never hit anyone. S VR further testified she never saw any abuse and perhaps her father only shoved her mother a few times. The prosecution was well aware of all allegations of abuse and willfully ignored this evidence as if it didn’t exist. The State also refused to investigate credible allegations of witness tampering because it would negatively affect its case. Additional false charges were filed against Appellant based on forced testimony by Samantha Rucki to recant her original statements. This made Appellant, who had never before been charged with a crime, into a multiple offender in a single court case. The State should not have been allowed to proceed with the prosecution of the defendant. TL. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF WITNESS TAMPERING EXISTS IN THIS. CASE IN VIOLATION OF MINN. STAT. 609.498. Minnesota law prohibits tampering with a witness and provides criminal penalties when a person "by means of intimidation, intentionally influences or attempts to influence a person who is or may become a witness to testify falsely at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law." Minn. Stat. 609.498 subd. 2a(a)(2). Persons are also prohibited from dissuading others from providing information to law enforcement conceming a crime or from influencing a person to provide false information concerning a crime to law enforcement authorities. Id. subd. 2a(a)(3)(4)..Under this subdivision, proof of intimidation may be based on a specific act or on the totality of the circumstances. Id., subd. 2a(b). Witness tampering and intimidation can be overt or subtle, and includes emotional manipulation. "Intimidation," should be understood to include not only acts of force or coercion, but also subtle forms of psychological or emotional manipulation and a number of courts in the State have expressed this view. The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that even "general or specific threats of reprisal” would constitute witness intimidation. State v. Washington, 521 N.W.2d 35, 42 (Minn. 1994), The Court has also acknowledged that the mere presence of certain spectators in the courtroom can result in witness intimidation. State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2009). The concept of "psychological intimidation" is well known to the cours, typically in Miranda rights cases. See e.g. State v. Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. 2001); In re Welfare ofG.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651(Minn. App. 2000); state vy. Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. App. 2000). ‘The Minnesota Court of Appeals has, in the context Minn. R. Evid. 606(b), distinguished between "psychological intimidation" and express threats of violence. State v, Jackson, 615 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Minn. App. 2000). Intimidate can mean simply to "make timid." State v. McGinnis, July 11, 2016 WL 3659127 (Minn, App. unpublished) (quoting The American Heritage College Dictionary 712 (34 ed. 1999). In the Bight Circuit, exhortations to remain loyal to one's people or family is sufficient to support a convietion for witness tampering. See United States v. Colhoff, 833 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2016) Afier being returned to David Rucki! custody, SVR told law enforcement that her father and aunt made her "recant.” Because the witness told investigators that her father made her change her story and her story did infact change from previous statements, it is apparent that witness tampering has occurred. The justice “system depends on the truthfulness of the testimony of witnesses and false testimony strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice.” In re Salmen, 484 N.W.2d 253, 254 (Minn.1992). It's standard operating procedure for law enforcement agencies to have preliminary audio reports to compare with testimony. Frequently, prior to an interrogation, the only evidence supporting a suspect's guilt is circumstantial or behavioral in nature. Under this condition, conducting a nonaccusatory interview of the suspect is indispensable with respect to identifying whether the suspect is, in fact, likely to be guilty. Furthermore, the information learned during the interview of a guilty suspect, when there is sparse incriminating evidence linking him to the crime, is necessary to conduct a proper interrogation. Inbau, Fred Reid, John E., Buckley Joseph P., Jayne, Brian C. Essentials of the Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Page 6 Officers conducting all criminal investigations will, whenever possible, record oral victim and witness statements in lieu of written statements. Statement evidence obtained during an initial investigation can be very powerful evidence in determining the course of an investigation; ultimately impacting charging decisions and convictions. Preliminary Investigation/Required Reports - Duluth Police Department Policy Manual, Policy 325 -page 154 ‘Appellant filed a witness tampering complaint against David Rucki on June 24, 2016 for coercing and intimidating Samantha Rucki into recanting her testimony. Former Star Tribune reporter Michael Brodkorb was also included in the criminal complaint for obstruction of justice and witness tampering.(See Attached Complaint)After returning home on Sunday, June 12, 2016 Appellant received a harassing and threatening extortion letter. The extortion letter was from David Rucki's attorney ‘Marsahll H. Tanick, Attorney at Law, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC. (See Attached Letter) Appellant had a reasonable suspicion the unsubstantiated claims contained in the letter ‘were meant to intimidate the Appellant into deleting the blog, Red Herring Alert and to coerce Appellant into pleading guilty and changing testimony in Sandra Grazzini- Rucki’s case. Appellant became aware on or about June 14, 2016 that Lea Dannewitz had apparently received a similar harassing and threatening extortion letter from David Rucki. Former Star Tribune reporter Michael Brodkorb wrote an article - Lea Dannewitz deleted her blog, Carver County Corruption, within days of receiving a letter from an attorney representing David Rucki, the father of Samantha and Gianna Ruckiwho disappeared during a custody and divorce dispute involving their parents on April 19, 2013. ...In an interview yesterday, Dannewitz acknowledged she deleted her blog, but said it was because “there was really no point” in keeping the blog active. “I haven't looked at the blog in over a year,” said Dannewitz. Facing potential civil litigation in Rucki case, owner deletes blog By Michael Brodkorb Jun 14 https://medium.com/@mbrodkorb/facing-potential litigationin-rucki-case-owner-deletes-blog-dd6fl e6abbea.ym00245pq Also, a Police Report of Michael Brodkorb's work product ending up not only in David Rucki's possession but possession of Lakeville Police. ‘The trial judge must be aggressively involved in media management to ensure the constitutionally protected rights of the defendant to a fair trial and the societal right to justice in a properly conducted trialThe general rule that a party must object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct or waive the issue does not apply to a criminal defendant appearing pro se. State v. Stufflebean, 329 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn, 1983) (holding appellate court must evaluate the misconduct to determine whether it was so serious the district court should have intervened sua sponte). Judge Asphaug completely failed to remedy the situation of witness tampering. IIL. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ENSURE DEFENDANT WAS: PROVIDED WITH ALL EVIDENCE TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR TRIAL. Criminal defendants have a right to prepare and present a complete defense. State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 597 (Minn. 2010). Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in order to prepare and present a defense. State v. Paradee, 403 N.W.2d 640, 642 (Minn.1987). ‘The prosecution is required to turn over, to the defense, all evidence in their possession, or in the police officer’s possession, that tends to show the Defendant is guilty of the crime or that the prosecution's witnesses are not credible. Under State rule 9.01 governing prosecution disclosure in felony cases, the relevant portion states: On the defendant's motion, the court for good cause must require the prosecutor ... to assist the defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case that are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency, but not within the prosecutor's control. ‘An objection can be made verbally or through a written motion, and can be done both before the start of trial, or during trial. The basic idea behind objecting and therefore preserving the error is that appellate courts are meant to fix the errors of the trial court. ‘Therefore, the trial court must be given the opportunity to fix the error themselves.The Dakota County Attomey’s office was put in charge of the discovery process, with little judicial supervision and the error was egregious enough to affect the outcome of the defendants case. Evidence/discovery and readily available, free electronic was not provided in its entirety. Originally charged $210 for 6 CD’s that would fit onto 1 DVD. April 29" billed another $91 for a CD of police reports received since January 22, 2016. Missing Eviden + Lakeville Officer Kelli Coughlin’s preliminary audio recorded statements from Gianna & Samantha Rucki = Preliminary audio statements of David Rucki, Tammy Love. Rick Hakanson, Loralie Musolf, Kelli Coughlin, Jim Dronen, and Matthew Palmer ~ Deputy US Marsahl, (Corresponding audio and video with a report.) = Stearns County Evidence (Surveillance of Residence by David Rucki) (Private, criminal investigative data for Christina Fox) = Blue ray dise containing MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reports = Child Protection Services Documents November, 2015 §612.3 DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION Deputies must include in their investigative reports adequate investigative information and reference to all material evidence and facts that are reasonably believed to be either incriminating or exculpatory to any individual in the case Omnibus Hearing Transcripts~ March 7, 2016 — Pages 5-15 THE COURT: Okay. So today is what we call a non-contested omnibus hearing, and I see that there has been no -- there are no motions that have been filed. THE DEFENDANT: | filed complaints against the County Attorneys for not providing my evidence. THE COURT: Okay. And you filed -- who did you file those complaints with?‘THE DEFENDANT: The Offfice of Professional Responsibility. ‘THE COURT: And what's going on with respect to that? ‘THE DEFENDANT: They are not going to take any further action. MS. KEENA: So perhaps we could find a trial date, and if she wants to waive her speedy today, set the trial date, but if'she decides -- changes her mind and wants to demand a speedy -- although your calendar I know is jam-packed. THE COURT: Itis. MS. KEENA: So I was guessing we'd probably be looking at a trial date in September? ‘THE COURT: Is that acceptable to you, so that you can get all the documents? 1 know that the -- I know, only because I'm handling some -- the other related cases, that the discovery is voluminous; that there is a lot of e-mail evidence, some of which may pertain to you. T have not seen -- I have not seen any of it myself because I know that it's still being analyzed and -- it's resulted in companion cases being continued ‘THE COURT: Okay, so we'll schedule this September 26, 2016. Now on the companion ‘cases, we just scheduled a—a contested omnibus hearing on May 12, 2016. I think what I'd like to do is bring Ms. Evavold in on that same day for a non-contested hearing just to make sure that you've got your discovery, that you have done what you need to do to get your discovery. Appellant filed a criminal complaint against Dakota Co. Attorneys: James Backstrom, Philip Prokopowicz and Kathryn Keena on February 21, 2016 for illegally withholding readily available, free, electronic, data in violation of the Minnesota Government data practice act (Chapter 13.09) and criminal misconduct of a public official (Chapter 609.43(1)). See March 1, 2016, OLPR Attachment and Criminal Complaint-Bryan Schafer, Hastings Chief of PoliceAt the first appearance on January 11, 2016 Assistant Dakota Co. attomey Kathryn Keena did not provide discovery nor the readily available, free, electronic, pubic data before or after the hearing, It was clear that the whole purpose was to force a guilty plea without ever allowing the defendant to see the evidence. All discovery shall be exchanged PRIOR to the settlement conference. Probable cause, and scheduling order for: 19HA-CR-15-4227, Signed by Karen Asphaug 3-1-16. From Criminal Complaint February 21, 2016 * There is no law that requires Backstrom to charge me anything for my readily available, free, electronic, pubic data nor my discovery. = Second, there is a law that requires Backstrom to give (email) me a free electronic copy of their data practice manual. = Third, there is a law that requires Backstrom to justify his fraudulent bill. = Fourth there is a law that prohibits Backstrom from mailing fraudulent bills. = Fifth, there is a law that limits Backstrom to charge for any data accept actual costs, (Actual costs for a CD is only (2) two cents— not $15.00, Plus, (6) six CD’s can fit onto one (1) DVD) It is a matter of the public record that Backstrom could have easily file shared all my illegally withheld, readily available, free, electronic evidence to me a long time ago. http://www. logis.org/index.php/membership/membership-list View Our Current Member List:Brooklyn Center, Burnsville, Dakota Communications Center, Dakota County, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Mendota Heights, Northfield, Rosemount, South St. Paul, West St.Paul Evavold Request 05022016 hittps://files.logis.org/pydio_publie/f717a5.php LOGIS data download link from LOGIS File Management SystemEffective July 1, 2015, attorneys, government agencies, and guardians ad litem are now required to electronically file and serve documents in all court cases filed in the 11 eCourtMN pilot counties. This includes all cases filed in Cass, Clay, Cook, Dakota, Faribault, Hennepin, Kandiyohi, Lake, Morrison, Ramsey, and Washington counties. eFiling now mandatory for attomeys, agencies, GALs in11 pilot counties, effective July 1 Posted: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 http://www.mncourts.gov/About- TheCourts/NewsAndAnnouncements/ItemDetail.aspx?id=1109 “We have held that when the State suppresses or fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence, the good or bad faith of the prosecution is irrelevant: a due process violation occurs whenever such evidence is withheld.” Illinois v. Fisher. 2. 540 U.S. 544, 547, 124 8. Ct. 1200, 1202 (2004). George R. Dekle, Sr, Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook, Page 145. Jury Trial Transcripts Volume 1 Sept. 26, 2016 ‘THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. Ms. Evavold, have you had enough time to consider the plea offer? ‘THE DEFENDANT: Yes, | have. ‘THE COURT: And what is your position? THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to decline that THE COURT: Okay. Have you made a counteroffer? ‘THE DEFENDANT: I said unless it was a dismissal, that would be my only other counteroffer. I haven't received ~ I still haven't received all of my evidence, so it's still being illegally withheld. I have received a fraction of it, and I received it onSeptember Ist, giving me less than a month to prepare for trial, which certainly is inadequate. My original trial was scheduled in March, and again, that was delayed because they had to review the evidence. So they've had that for ten months and I've had it for less than a month. And I still -- I still have information that's missing. THE COURT: Okay. So Ms. -- you're claiming that you have not received all of the discovery? THE DEFENDANT: Correct. I have not received the missing U.S. Marshal evidence. [have not received the Blu-ray -- the Blu-ray Disc; it's still in their office. ‘There's no law that requires me to go to look at the evidence. There's no law that requires me to be charged for that. But there is a law that the county prosecutor give me all of my evidence. I have received some audio, but again, there's no correlating transcription. I just further received more information today, on the day of the trial, and I received the motion in limine on Saturday. So again, this is feeling rushed and pushed and trial by ambush is what I feel like because I haven't had clearly adequate time to prepare for that. And I have filed complaints with the Lakeville Police Department, Hastings Police Department against the Dakota County Atiomey’s Office, and with the FBI last week. ‘And I've had witness-tampering complaints. I met with the bailiff during the break to identify one of the witnesses -- or witness tampering I filed against Michael Brodkorb due to providing information directly to David Rucki, which then ended up in Lakeville Police Department's evidence that was sent to me. ‘THE COURT: Okay. So what are you asking for today?‘THE DEFENDANT: I'm asking for time to review and to prepare adequately and to get the rest of my information because I'm not going to plead guilty without having all of my information, all of my evidence. THE COURT: Right. Okay, the -I believe that there's ample information in the record about discovery. Discovery has been an ongoing issue in this case. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it has. THE COURT: And you are held to the same standard as a lawyer. You have chosen to represent yourself, We've had numerous conversations about this over the past many months. THE COURT: Okay. What do you need as far as time? You've had -- you've had the evidence for ~ the discovery for approximately a month, THE COURT: -- discovery. What -- what -- how much _ time do you need? THE DEFENDANT: I wouldn't even be able to identify what that timeline is. There's information that there's no transcripts; listening to audio and just even transcribing. ‘There should be correlating written reports with all of that. So it's time-consuming, and I'm not going to, you know, be pushed or rushed into something that’s going to impact me without having all of that information and being able to formulate a strategy. Trial-by-ambush can be very effective if you are the party with all the aces up your sleeve, but many worthy persons believe justice suffers in the process. George R. Dekle, Sr. Prosecution Principles: A Clinical Handbook (Thompson/West: 2007). Page 144"Under our system of jurisprudence, every criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and 'afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Minn. 1992) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). This includes the opportunity to develop the defendant's version of the facts, so the jury may decide where the truth lies. Id. at 194 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)). To vindicate this right, courts must allow defendants to present evidence “that is material and favorable to their theory of the case." State v. Crims, 540 N.W.2d 860, 866 (Minn. App. 1995). A district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Kelly, 435 N.W.2d 807, 813 (Minn. 1989). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and facts in the record." Riley v. state, 792 N.W.2d 831, 833 (Mfim. 2011 IV: DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO JUDICIAL BIAS AND QUESTIONABLE IMPARTIALITY, Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest, a judge may be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified. The right to an unbiased judge is so fundamental to jurisprudence that criminal convictions have been reversed over its violation. Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should recuse himself/herself in a proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.If a judge is aware of circumstances that could cause his/her impartiality to be questioned, the judge should disclose them for the record. Both federal and state law holds that judges must recuse themselves if there are grounds to do so. “The reason for recusal is that judges have a duty of fairness when imparting justice as they are presiding over cases. At the time the judge learns of the assignment to a case, the judge should review the facts of the case and decide whether there are any conflicts of interest regarding the case. If the judge determines that there is such a conflict, then the judge may decide to recuse him- or herself from the case. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 147 (5th ed. 1979) defines "bias" as: [Ain [ilnclination; bent; prepossession; a preconceived opinion; a predisposition to decide a cause or an issue in a certain way, which does not leave the mind perfectly open to conviction. To incline to one side. Condition of mind, which sways judgment and renders a judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in particular case. As used in law regarding disqualification of judge, refers to mental attitude or disposition of the judge toward a party to the litigation, Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not to be, recusal is necessary. Judge Asphaug presided over a criminal charge of disorderly conduct against David Rucki.in 2009. On September 8, 2009, David Rucki was arrested by the Lakeville, Minnesota Police Department and charged with disorderly conduct. (Lakeville is in Dakota County,Minnesota.) Rucki currently has two other disorderly conduct convietions, one from a bar fight in 1994 and another from a road rage incident in 2014. ‘The disorderly conduct case came before Judge Karen Asphaug, on 12/31/2009 when a preliminary hearing was held. A trial date was then set. But before the case could go to trial, the defense filed a motion to dismiss for “lack of probable cause.” That motion was granted without a hearing by Judge Asphaug and the case was abruptly thrown out. That Judge Asphaug had knowledge of an incident involving a criminal charge against Rucki, where he was accused of violent behavior, and concealed this prior involvement creates a conflict of interest. Judge Karen Asphaug also assigned herself to all four criminal cases related to the Grazzini-Rucki parental deprivation case. This action led to knowledge of disputed facts and affected impartiality. CONCLUSION Due to the cumulative violations of due process and fundamental unfairness of the manner in which the State has circumvented the defendant’s rights, reversal is appropriate in the interest of justice. h Add = id. Deirdre Evavold 3015 30" Street Ct. St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 293-6233 PRO SE APPELLANTADDENDUM. Register of Actions and Sentencing Criminal Complaint Against Dakota County Attorneys. Office of Lawyer Professional Responsi Hellmuth & Johnson Letter.. Chief Judge of the First Judicial District Response... Witness Tampering Complaint... Stearns County Evidence Request... Register of Actions (David Rucki-Judicial Officer Karen Asphaug)..