Minneapolis firefighter charged in man's death

[Phatty]

Although the criminal charges were eventually dropped, if you read the whole article it seems apparent that this whole incident had a dramatically negative impact on this guy's life.

 

[Jeff White]

http://www.startribune.com/local/46672927.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUX

Judge drops homicide charges against Mpls. firefighter

Wisconsin authorities failed to keep key electronic messages, so the judge dismissed the charges against Kyle Huggett.

By CHAO XIONG, Star Tribune

A Wisconsin judge dismissed homicide charges against Minneapolis firefighter Kyle Huggett because law enforcement authorities failed to preserve voice-mail messages that would have helped determine whether he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot an intruder.

Burnett County Circuit Judge James Babbitt ruled that sheriff's detectives denied Huggett due process when they failed to thoroughly listen to and transcribe threatening messages left by John Peach, who broke into Huggett's home in rural Danbury, Wis., last year.

"It is hard to imagine any evidence more compelling than threats from the decedent that the defendant heard approximately two hours before the decedent is breaking into the defendant's residence," Babbitt wrote in his ruling Friday.

Babbitt described the voice-mail messages as "the most important pieces of exculpatory evidence."

Babbitt dismissed the charges with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be refiled unless the dismissal is overturned. It was unclear if prosecutors will appeal. District Attorney William Norine couldn't be reached for comment.

Huggett, 33, shot and killed Peach on Jan. 20, 2008, after a weeklong exchange of heated text messages led to angry telephone calls and climaxed with the break-in. Huggett was living with Peach's ex-girlfriend, Amy Kerbel, and her and Peach's child. Kerbel was also pregnant with Huggett's child.

"Mr. Huggett has always been disturbed -- I've been disturbed that this evidence didn't exist, because it existed at one point, and it showed that he was innocent," said Huggett's attorney, Craig Mastantuono.

By the time Burnett County authorities subpoenaed for information contained on Huggett and Kerbel's phones, they were told the data were no longer available. Both Huggett and Kerbel had received threatening text and voice-mail messages from Peach.

Only Jan. 20 text messages were preserved, although Peach had been sending threatening text messages since Jan. 15, according to the judge. On the night of the shooting, a sheriff's deputy began copying text messages Peach sent to Kerbel's cell phone, but stopped because there were too many, court documents show. A sheriff's deputy had briefly listened to part of a voice-mail message Peach left on Kerbel's cell phone, but didn't take notes, and the deputy can no longer recall its tone or content, Babbitt wrote. Kerbel had told authorities that the message was "angry, hostile, loud, yelling."

At one point during the investigation, Huggett asked detective Tracy Finch if she had listened to a message from Peach on Huggett's phone. In the end, no one did.

Peach left the messages just hours before he broke into Huggett's home about 10 p.m. Huggett shot him twice as Kerbel and her son barricaded themselves in another room.

"I thought he was going to kill me," Huggett told authorities.

Peach sounded drunk in his messages, court papers show.

"This court is satisfied that Huggett did what he reasonably should have done to have the evidence preserved; namely, he told Detective Finch precisely where the voice mail was located, he summarized it to her immediately after the incident as best he could, and he even went so far as to suggest she listen to it," Babbitt wrote.

The voice-mail messages on Kerbel's and Huggett's phones "go directly to whether or not Huggett acted reasonably in shooting John Peach," the judge wrote.

Through Mastantuono, Huggett declined to comment. He had been free on bail awaiting trial.

It's unclear why the sheriff's detectives failed to listen to the messages in their entirety and transcribe contents, or why they didn't act quicker in transcribing the week's text messages.

Sheriff Dean Roland could not be reached for comment; Mastantuono declined to speculate.

"Clearly, this was a victory for Mr. Huggett," Mastantuono said. "Very recently, he's doing quite well. He's relieved."

Huggett was placed on paid administrative leave from the Minneapolis Fire Department soon after the shooting, but returned several months ago to work in the department's equipment facility, said city spokesman Matt Laible. The city has not received official word on Huggett's case, but in general, Laible said, city employees can return to their regular work once cleared of criminal charges. Huggett was hired in 2001.

Soon after the shooting, he and Kerbel split up. Earlier this year, he incurred a number of criminal charges, including not having a tail light, not registering a vehicle, operating under the influence of alcohol and resisting an officer.

"This isn't ending the recovery from this incident," Mastantuono said. "I think that he's on the road to recovery."

Chao Xiong • 612-673-4391

Hardly a vindication of Hugget's actions or a declaration of self defense....More like an indictment of poor procedure on the part of police and the prosecutor...

 

[richyoung]

Quote:
Paging all internet lawyers... tonights buffet features crow - please feel free to get all you can eat....

You might want to read the actual reason the charges were dismissed before gloating too much. Go ahead, take a plate for yourself.

I did. The voicemail messages that everyone said would do him in weren't saved by the police force, and he insisted they were excuplpatory. The judge agreed. The case should never have gone that far.

 

[Crashola]

That's unbelievable. I may be way off base on this, but I'm guessing this investigation was one of a handful, if not the only, major investigations that took place in Burnett County over the past few years. How do you lose a key piece of evidence to a murder investigation when the rest of your inbox consists of DUIs, drug possession, and noise complaints?

 

[richyoung]

Hardly a vindication of Hugget's actions or a declaration of self defense....More like an indictment of poor procedure on the part of police and the prosecutor...

Not suprisingly, I disagree. Judge dismissed charges WITH PREJUDICE, and the DA has "no comment"? The DA has no comment because he just got the judicial equivalent of a (word)-slap for wasting his time by persuing the case. Perhaps while you were highlighting in red, you missed this part...

"It is hard to imagine any evidence more compelling than threats from the decedent that the defendant heard approximately two hours before the decedent is breaking into the defendant's residence," Babbitt wrote in his ruling Friday.

Babbitt described the voice-mail messages as "the most important pieces of exculpatory evidence."

("Exculpatory" means proving your actions were not illegal...)

Babbitt dismissed the charges with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be refiled unless the dismissal is overturned. It was unclear if prosecutors will appeal. District Attorney William Norine couldn't be reached for comment.

 

[ilbob]

A Wisconsin judge dismissed homicide charges against Minneapolis firefighter Kyle Huggett because law enforcement authorities failed to preserve voice-mail messages that would have helped determine whether he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot an intruder.

You have to wonder. Was this a case of:

a) A simple screwup on the part of LE.
b) LE attempting to hurt the defendant.
c) LE attempting to help the defendant.

From the tone of the article I am guessing b or c, since it appears they were accessing the messages directly from the cell phone. I have a real hard time believing anyone could possibly unintentionally delete all the text and voice messages on the phone.

My guess is there is a class given the deputiesm real soon on preserving this kind of evidence.

 

[Phatty]

richyoung,

The judge only found that there was the possibility that the missing evidence could prove the defendant's innocence. Obviously, because the evidence is missing nobody knows whether or not the voice messages hurt or helped the defendant. For all we know, the decedent left a voice message saying he was going to come over and apologize to the defendant.

Consider the recent case of the pharmacist in OK. If the police had accidentally lost the video surveillance tape that recorded the robbery and shooting prior to anyone being able to view the tape, the judge in that case would also toss out the criminal case against the pharmacist because the tape would be presumed to have evidence that could shed direct light on whether or not the pharmacist's actions were justified. Since we've all seen the video, we realize that the video is likely evidence against the pharmacist in that case, so he would be getting a huge break if the video was lost by the police. But in no case would a dismissal based on lost evidence vindicate the pharmacist's actions.

 

[Phatty]

You have to wonder. Was this a case of:

a) A simple screwup on the part of LE.
b) LE attempting to hurt the defendant.
c) LE attempting to help the defendant.

The initial police investigators may have thought it was a simple, open and shut case of justified self-defense, so why bother cataloguing every single voice message the guy had received? Later, the state's attorney after reviewing the complete picture of events and circumstances leading up to the death, decided to bring charges, but all the evidence had not been processed as sufficiently as one would like in a normal case of 1st degree murder.

 

[Jeff White]

Babbitt described the voice-mail messages as "the most important pieces of exculpatory evidence."

("Exculpatory" means proving your actions were not illegal...)

Babbitt had no way of knowing if the voice mail messages were exculpatory or not, he didn't hear them did he? Once again the membership here chooses to ignore reality and twist things to fit their personal prejudice.

When you can prove that the judge had some knowledge of what the actual voice mail messages said, I'll believe your theory. In the mean time, I'll believe my experience with the system and stand by my assertion that the case did not stand on it's own without the voice mail messages and the judge dismissed with prejudice for that reason, not because he looked into some judicial crystal ball and determined on his own that the voice mail messages were exculpatory.

I have to ask if the messages were actually exculpatory why the defense counsel didn't act to have them preserved. There is a thing called discovery. I'm not familiar with how it works in MN but in most places the defense knows everything the prosecution intends to present. One could conclude that the defense would have acted to preserve the messages if they were exculpatory.

b) LE attempting to hurt the defendant.
c) LE attempting to help the defendant.

From the tone of the article I am guessing b or c, since it appears they were accessing the messages directly from the cell phone. I have a real hard time believing anyone could possibly unintentionally delete all the text and voice messages on the phone.

Voice mail messages aren't retained on the actual cell phone, but at the provider. Most of them are retained for 21 days (different providers may have different policies) unless they are accessed and saved again which resets the 21 day (or whatever the provider replies) clock. It would have required a subpoena from either the prosecution or defense to have them retained. It's possible that no one on the sheriff's department or in the prosecutors office knew this.

My question remains, if the messages were exculpatory, why didn't the defense act to have them retained? They have subpoena power too.

 

[Crashola]

The local newspaper has a better description of law enforcement's actions (or lack thereof).

It also includes a more complete quote from the judge re: nature of lost evidence, that the Star Tribune left out of its story.

I'm still in disbelief at law enforcement's inability to preserve key electronic evidence. Wouldn't the state DCI have specialists available for this?

 

[DHJenkins]

"Anything you say [or type] can and will be used against you in a court of law".

That's before, during & after the fact, people. Remember that.

 

[Jeff White]

http://www.the-leader.net/default.a...subname=&pform=&sc=1009&hn=the-leader&he=.net

Case against Huggett dismissed
* WEB EXCLUSIVE* 01.JUN.09

BURNETT COUNTY - A judge Monday dismissed a charge of second-degree intentional homicide against Kyle Huggett, citing failure by local sheriff’s deputies to preserve voice messages that were eventually lost forever and thereby short-circuiting the chances of a fair trial.

Judge James Babbit, in a 13-page decision, wrote, “Because what may well be characterized as the most important pieces of exculpatory evidence were not preserved by law enforcement officers, Mr. Huggett’s due process rights have been denied.”

Huggett, 33, shot and killed John Peach on the night of Jan. 20, 2008, when Peach broke into the home Huggett shared with Peach’s ex-girlfriend, Amy Kerbel.

A week prior to the shooting, Peach, Huggett and Kerbel had exchanged threatening text messages. Approximately three hours before Peach drove from his home in Grantsburg to Huggett’s home in rural Danbury, Peach allegedly left threatening voice messages on both Kerbel’s and Huggett’s phones.

Although both phones were taken as evidence on the night of the shooting, only one deputy listened to the either of the final voice messages left by Peach on both Kerbel’s and Huggett’s phones. She later testified that she listened to the message on Kerbal’s phone for “a few minutes, approximately,” or “a second or two.” She could not recall if she heard the entire message and could not recall the tone, tenure or verbal content of the message.

“No one from the Burnett County Sheriff’s Department asked Huggett for permission or consent to listen to the voice mail message,” Judge Babbitt wrote.

The sheriff’s department did send a subpoena to the phone company for information on the phones, but not voice mail messages specifically. When the subpoena didn’t provide the voice mail messages, a search warrant was obtained to gain access to the messages, but by this time, the messages had were no longer available.

Voice message recordings had expired on or about Jan. 27, a week following the shooting.

Judge Babbit delayed a motion for dismissal by Huggett’s defense attorney to have the phones sent to the state Department of Criminal Investigation to see if the voice messages could be retrieved. The DCI had no success.

Due to the lack of the messages, Judge Babbitt ruled, it is impossible for the jury to determine the reasonableness of Huggett’s actions on the night of the shooting. He cited State v. Hahn, which stands for the proposition that “when the State files to preserve exculpatory evidence, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment has been violated.”
The Burnett County District Attorney’s office has indicated that it is likely that they would appeal the decision. Judge Babbitt commented, during a recent court proceeding, that he felt his decision would be reviewed by a higher court.

Looks like simple incompetence, not that Huggett's actions were legally justified. Doesn't look like a conspiracy to frame someone either. Looks more like investigators who didn't know what they were dealing with when it came to the voice mail messages. This decision is about the ability of Huggett to get a fair trial, not a vindication of his actions that night.

 

[Phatty]

The interesting question presented by this case is what duty does a prosecutor have to obtain and preserve evidence that may support an affirmative defense. The judge is almost saying here that the state is responsible for building the case for the defendant. The case would seem a lot more clear cut if the sheriff took custody of a phone that physically stored the voice messages on it and then the sheriff lost the phone.

If the firefighter believed that the voice messages supported his defense then he should have taken steps to keep them safe. All the state has to do is prove that he shot and killed a guy. The burden then shifts to him to show that he had a reasonable justification for killing the guy. As far as I know, in Minnesota the state does not have to prove the nonexistance of every possible defense to a charge.

 

[Crashola]

Looks like simple incompetence, not that Huggett's actions were legally justified. . . . This decision is about the ability of Huggett to get a fair trial, not a vindication of his actions that night.

Agreed. Brady v. Maryland has been the law of our land for almost 50 years. Law enforcement is obligated to preserve and disclose exculpatory evidence.

 

[Bookworm]

It reads like the Firefighter taunted the other guy into coming over. Maybe the victim was planning on visiting his child, for all we know. No evidence, besides the "claims" of text messages to suggest a SD situation at all. I didn't read anything about the door being "kicked in". It looked like the guy walked in, perhaps with a key. Perhaps kicked in after the shooting?

Were the decision mine, I'd have run this before a grand jury at the least.

 

[Starcheck55]

The interesting question presented by this case is what duty does a prosecutor have to obtain and preserve evidence that may support an affirmative defense. The judge is almost saying here that the state is responsible for building the case for the defendant. The case would seem a lot more clear cut if the sheriff took custody of a phone that physically stored the voice messages on it and then the sheriff lost the phone.

If the firefighter believed that the voice messages supported his defense then he should have taken steps to keep them safe. All the state has to do is prove that he shot and killed a guy. The burden then shifts to him to show that he had a reasonable justification for killing the guy. As far as I know, in Minnesota the state does not have to prove the nonexistance of every possible defense to a charge.

are you f'ing kidding me? ALL of the burden is on the state to show he committed a crime, not just shot and killed a man. The defense can literally not say a single damn thing at trial if they so choose.

and you theory of "he should preserve evidence to prove himself innocent"...how about that the evidence that could have proven him innocent was (for lack of a better word) lost/destroyed by the police.

bottom line: don't break into people's homes - PERIOD

 

[mgkdrgn]

Re: Ever hear of "Mutual Combat"

The news article doesn't give us all the text messages that were exchanged.

As presented in the article, this for sure is producing the odor of "mutual combat", even if the initial combat was via text.

If that last message from the shooter was along the lines of "Oh ya, well come on over and I'll mop the place up with ya ..." .... the "Castle" ain't gonna count for diddly.

Someone unknown that breaks in is one thing, someone you invited over for an a$$ whoopin is another.

But ... since the investigating agency didn't do their job properly ... we'll never know.

 

[ReadyRob]

I think the text messages might do him in.

The legal system does not look favorably upon provoking someone enough that you have to kill them to save your life.

Its called the Administration of Justice_

 

[rbernie]

we'll never know.

Pretty much, and I see little profit in continued speculation.

 

[rbernie]

we'll never know.

Pretty much, and I see little profit in continued speculation.