By: secretsquirrel on 12/19/09
This guys is gonna walk with a good defense attorney. There are enough holes in this case to strain noodles.

By: fairandbalanced on 12/19/09
AC: That's a good one! ROFL!!

By: mccain on 12/19/09
ss. why would you say that, are you part of this case?

By: atlascollapsed on 12/19/09
Sorry Jeffrey. It was all in fun!

By: coloradokid88 on 12/19/09
ac-what did you write-it got removed already.

By: secretsquirrel on 12/19/09
No more than anyone else on here I guess. But, I figure if OJ can get away with it and from what's been reported on this case it seems to me that his 'He stole it from me' defense has some effect.
The fact that the ME cannot definitively conclude that it was the Fentanyl was responsible for his death (Likely, but not definitively) and that the state must prove the legal theory of "Actus Reus and Mens Rae" (meaning that he must be proven to have committed a criminal act and then to have intended to commit that act) is another factor the prosecution must overcome to win a conviction.
"...Emily Duncanson, who ruled that Karsten’s death was due to mixed drug toxicity. She found both methamphetamine and the drug Fentanyl in Karsten’s system. However, Fentanyl — a highly potent pain reliever — was found to be the highest concentration drug in his system and it most likely caused Karsten’s death."
Who would send someone up for life or even 20+ based on "most likely?" Much as I would LOVE to see another drug dealer rot in a prison shower, there is still a legal threshold to be met and that is always going to be double edged.
A 25¢ defense lawyer would be able to twist this up in knots between the toxicology report, the claim that the patch was stolen as opposed to sold.
I did not read of them finding any money with Karsten's prints on it in Heard's possession and feel safe in assuming that they inventoried his personal effects and the results of their search of his home. Was there a foil Fentanyl wrapper with Heard's prints on it in Karsten's possession?
The toxicological exam uncovered two deadly substances in Karsten's system. It will be incumbent upon the presectution to come up with proof, as opposed to likelihoods, that it was the Fentanyl that did the damage and further that it was even Fentanyl that can be proven to have come from Heard.
A jury generally does not convict on liklihoods. I am sure there is a lot that I DON'T know about the testimony but just from what I have read right here, I would feel awfully uncertain at this stage of the game.
I FEEL and I believe that he is guilty as sin.
But feeling is a long cry from proving beyond a reasonable doubt and that is the threshold that must be met in court.
Mine would be much lower than the court's so be grateful that I am not rendering judgments in our court system.
Do not get the impression that i am trying to come off as some sort of F.Lee Squirrel. I am not that nor am I dispensing legal advice. This is all simply my personal OPINION. I just have a working knowledge of the legal system is all.

Disclaimer #1: You asked.
Disclaimer #2: You are talking to a guy that thinks he's a squirrel.

By: secretsquirrel on 12/19/09
AC - It appears that someone came back and flushed the stool. LOL

By: kadrmas21 on 12/19/09
Well, the main reason why this guy could 'get off' although in my opinion he would not be getting off because in order to get off you would have to have actually killed someone. This guy is a dirtbag but he is not a killer. Truth be told, Judge Christian made a wise decision in declaring the mistrial because had he allowed this to go forward and this guy would have been convicted, it would have been overturned by the appellate court anyway because Dan McIntosh aka the Mike Nifong of Steele County was screwing around and hiding evidence. He can give his little sob story about the 'victims' but it has nothing to do with that. He tried to pull a fast one and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

To me, this is just not a murder case. You want to charge the guy with dealing drugs that is one thing but murder? I mean, if the guy took a painkilling patch and used it and he died, how is that Heard's fault? I mean seriously. That simply is not murder. I dont see this case ever resulting in a conviction on a murder charge because well, it was not murder. I frankly am astounded people can sit there and say this guy is guilty of sin of murder when a murder did not even occur. Would you charge a car salesman with murder because he sold a car to someone and they ended up crashing it and dying? No.

By: therealtruth on 12/19/09
Oh great - and now the Federated v. Boudreau trial gets put on the back burner AGAIN because McIntosh will be retrying this case AGAIN. Boudreau's hearing was cancelled on Thursday (the one where Federated handed over trumped up charges along with the "perjury charge" against Boudreau for McIntosh to deal with resulting in 45 years worth of prison charges) apparently because McIntosh is busy will a real criminal case. (Is it real? or unreal?)
Uneffingunbelievable. The Boudreau's have had to live in Federated hell for almost 2 years now which is a bit of overkill given in all likelihood it is just another Federated historical "make him sweat" scenario.
Not to mention the continued harassment by the Fedheads - which BTW ARE allowed to drop off their insults about the family on the blog as painful as it is for the family to read.
Cripes they are over there now quoting a scripture that asks forgiveness! Something about if they are cheek slapped turn the other cheek. This family is all slapped out!
They will NOT find peace in forgiveness, they will find peace in THE TRUTH and a big fat apology for the continued harassment.

hey SS - no comment on CHEEK SLAPS! I already know what you are THINKING!

By: secretsquirrel on 12/19/09
LOL thanks truth. ;)
kadrmas21 - I do not think that Heard's action (or lack thereof) are legally murderous based upon what has been reported.
You are right.
The guy IS a dirtbag but that is not covered under the legal standard to qualify the case for a murder charge to my (limited) knowledge. Yet, that's not why he was charged with murder.
I am presuming that the prosecutor felt he could prove that Heard either sold or provided Karstens with or at least knew and gave tacit approval for the use of Fentanyl taken from Heard's home. Heard has repeatedly denied any such knowledge and the prosecution has provided no substantive evidence to the contrary. Unless the prosecutor can prove that simple fact, the case does not qualify for a 3rd degree murder (manslaughter) charge. I was certain of that before and verified that the statute has not been revised outside of that standard since I last read it. It has not.
If you reference the Minnesota state revisor of statutes site, regarding statute 609.20, you will see that the following must be met:

"(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in schedule III, IV, or V;"

Where "Actus Reus and Mens Rae" come into play (generally) in a murder trial is that the prosecution must prove the person guilty of the deed itself (Actus Reus) and then had intended to commit the act (Mens Rae).
With Heard claiming that he has no knowledge of Karsten taking Fentanyl from his home and the prosecutor unable to disprove that claim, the prosecution's case goes down the toilet.
The judge made a sage decision to declare a mistrial and frankly, I think the defense should have argued against it and was foolish not to.
Why? Because the prosecution only gets one shot at the brass ring for murder cases (the infamous 'double jeopardy rule'). With the case as it stands, the defense would have walked on this and the case would be closed for good. Now it's open for the prosecution to dig and scrape and come up with more "evidence" to bolster their argument.
It doesn't matter WHAT killed Karsten. The core issue is how he got it and if the person possessing the Fentanyl in the first place had knowledge of Karsten's acquiring it.
He IS guilty as sin in my opinion of being a scourge on society but if I were sitting on that jury right now and the trial went forward as it existed, I would have been legally obligated to give him a 'pass' on the murder charge unless it could be proven that he sold or gave the Fentanyl to Karsten whether tacitly or intentionally.
Whether Karsten took the Fentanyl of his own volition or not is NOT the legal standard at issue here. Nor does it matter if the methamphetamine killed him or the Fentanyl. What IS legally at issue here is how it came to be in Karsten's possession.
Further, with the ME unable to state unequivocally that Fentanyl actually caused the man's death, the state's case is further weakened even if they CAN prove complicity on Heard's part.
As for the Fed vs. Boudreau case, I don't think the Karsten trial will be resurrected right away. Investigators will be working diligently for some time to come to bolster their case because the prosecutor will have learned what he needs to make his case. If he can't find hard evidence, he will charge Heard with a lesser crime and try to get him that way by offering a plea to stop the pressure. No prosecutor promises a family closure and then walks away. Even if it's not ethical or legally possible. It's a credibility issue and sometimes just plain old vanity.
This is not about the Karsten family or the Heard family, it's about the law.
My sympathies to the Karsten's for their loss, I really do hope they find closure on this and find a way to digest the tragedy.
Mr. Heard, guilty or not, this publication would not see fit to print my opinion of you sir.
Here is a link to the site, you will find it very informative.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/
So endeth the rant
~SS~

By: therealtruth on 12/19/09
SS - "If he can't find hard evidence, he will charge Heard with a lesser crime and try to get him that way by offering a plea to stop the pressure."

Interesting you said that - because I immediately thought of the latest "perjury" charge added to the Boudreau case right after McIntosh had a glimpse of the real truth after the Boudreau testimony. I believe he realized he had no case - so they added an additional threat to force Boudreau into pleading down to something - anything. Which apparently is not going to happen since Boudreau (from reading the his transcript) did nothing illegal and why would he plead guilty to something he didn't do?
How exactly does a prosecutor back out gracefully when you have the pressure of the largest employer in town pushing you to find something, anything, to make something stick?
McIntosh admitting there is no case just ain't gonna happen. If he cares about his career in Owatonna that is...

Really tough spot to be in.

Pass the Imodium please SS - I feel another P.V.D attack coming on!

By: secretsquirrel on 12/19/09
No prosecutor can back out "gracefully."
Any prosecutor that should back out must do so with the full knowledge that he is backing out because it is right and just.
There is a step that is usually overlooked in a lot of these things. The prosecutor doesn't just simply decide to prosecute someone. There is the grand jury process in which he has to show (to a much lower standard) that he has a viable case to charge the defendant.
So, before this goes to trial, people like you and I review the state's case before he or she is permitted to proceed.
So, this cannot be laid at the prosecutor's feet, your average Joe or Jane at some point must have felt it was a worthwhile and justifiable pursuit.
Our justice system is fascinating and aggravating all the way around. The rules evolve as we go along. People hang their hats on constitutional law but that is merely the framework. The real law happens every day in in government through our elected officials, our supreme courts, appellate courts and through cases like this as they wend their way through the system.
One thing that I have always said and will always believe in is the fact that, for the most part, if it is logical (criminal and civil law), it will probably fly in court.
Where the courts get into trouble is through interpretation of that law. A good judge, like a good law, will achieve the right result BASED ON LAW and forego the emotional issues. That is what the system is designed to do.

By: therealtruth on 12/19/09
Grand Jury??? there has been no Grand jury involved that I am aware of. The charges were directly filed by the prosecutor! there has been no decision by the judge about probable cause - the prosecutor still seems to be on a fishing expedition. The judge hasn't even heard all the information yet. After the last testimony hearing of Boudreau there was a whole lot of scrambling going on and all they could do was come up with a he must be lying!


-------------
United States

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Military when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
In many (though not all) U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury, or filing a charging document directly with the court. Such a document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand jury indictment. To protect the suspect's due process rights in felony cases (where the suspect's interest in liberty is at stake), there is usually a preliminary hearing where a judge determines if there is probable cause that the charged crime was committed by the suspect in custody. If the judge finds such probable cause, he or she will bind or hold over the suspect for trial.
The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument is usually the same, regardless of the jurisdiction: it consists of a short and plain statement of the time, place and manner in which the defendant is alleged to have committed the offense. Each offense is usually set out in a separate count. Some indictments for complex crimes, particularly those involving conspiracy or numerous counts, can run to hundreds of pages, but many indictments, even for crimes as serious as murder, consist of a single sheet of paper.
Indictable offenses are normally tried by jury, unless the accused waives the right to a jury trial. The Sixth Amendment mandates the right of having a jury trial for any criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than six months. Notwithstanding the existence of the right to jury trial, the vast majority of criminal cases in the U.S. are resolved by the plea bargaining process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States

By: secretsquirrel on 12/19/09
Yet it remains that it must be reviewed judicially. Minnesota does not have a death penalty (abolished in 1911) so I would venture to guess that idea of 'capital' crimes is moot.
However, during the arraignment a judge reviews even a direct charge and must listen to the prosecution's justification to lodge the state's complaint. There must have been something to allow it to proceed to trial otherwise it would have been tossed out straight off. It wasn't and that is what has me scratching my head (along with how we got started on the Boudreau case). LOL.

By: giant on 12/19/09
Maybe you're left scratching your head because you couldn't begin to know the facts based on a few news articles and the "information" put out on this forum. The information to opinion ratio on here is about 1:100

By: quinn on 12/19/09
Not intending to detract from the Bourdeau case in any way, I don't understand why they just didn't go after this guy for dealing. It wasn't exactly a state secret. He'd probably sit more prison time and we wouldn't have these "evidentiary issues". Also not understanding the thought process of not trying the girlfriend, she seems a hell of alot more culpable for his death than anyone. I understand CYA but her story seems a bit extreme. Sorry for the kiddo's family.

OPP show a little respect, his name wasn't Brian it was Brandon, I believe.

By: therealtruth on 12/19/09
SS - the "information" hearings are still ongoing - there is no trial date set. The judge could still throw this case in the dumpster - where it belongs - saving the town of Owatonna from a whole lotta aggravation and bad PR and lots of wasted money ( in spite of what honestabe thinks). I believe Federated's intention was to make Boudreau sweat and plead this thing down if enough charges were used against him - not send him to jail for 45 years! I believe he and his wife are not about to let that happen given they know the truth. Try getting a good nights sleep for the past 18 plus months with 45 years worth of charges hanging over your head. Did they make him SWEAT - heck yeah - so much so that he needs daily intravenous fluid infusions from the severe dehydration.

Another case where the prosecutor went in not knowing ALL the available information I guess? Heard Federated's side of the story only. And was damned surprised to hear Boudreau's side of the story.
How does he sleep at night!


As long as this case Boudreau case is open - expect me to be lurking! And drinking a whole lotta Imodium for my frequent bouts of P.V.D. !

One judge recused, the other excused, and now you have a visiting judge from Waseca. Any wonder why it hasn't just been dismissed. Life just ain't that simple.

Well as far as this Heard case - I guess as some like to say - just wait and let the courts decide! Again.

By: wastemytaxes on 12/19/09
----"Like I have said before, this would be like putting a car salesman on trial for murder because he sold a car to someone and they ended up crashing and dying" - kadrmas21---

I did not miss the point, seems you did. A very simple point that seems to elude you. It's very basic...see if you can follow me...drugs are illegal, cars are not. Thats why using your car salesman analogy is idiotic. The dealer that sells an ILLEGAL drug can be charged with homicide because the drug itself is illegal. I don't think we as a society have an issue with car salemen... i do believe though, we frown upon drug dealers... maybe you don't though...

By: Jeff on 12/20/09
In 1988, after the death of star basketball player Len Bias from a drug overdose, Congress passed a stricter Anti-Drug Act commonly referred to as the "Len Bias Law" which makes anyone illegally dispensing drugs more culpable for their "victim's" subsequent actions upon taking them. Several states, most notably Wisconsin and Vermont, have their own similar state laws.

According to an article in the Star Tribune, referencing a similar case in July: "Legal experts say this particular third-degree murder charge has been possible under state law for about 20 years, but is uncommon primarily because it's difficult to prove that a particular drug caused a person's death." See: http://www.startribune.com/local/south/52111812.html. Here's an example of a Minnesota man in Vermont being hit with both state and federal charges: http://friendsdontletfriendsdie.com/statenews/statenewsarticles.shtml

Opponents of the law say that it discourages people from reporting drug overdoses for fear they will be charged with murder. Yes, drugs are awful and people are idiots for taking them. But imagine the dilemma of giving a friend a hit of something, watching them convulse, and being "forced" to run away in case they died to avoid murder charges instead of trying to help medical personnel save them.

As with anything, a prosecutor needs to use discretion. Yes a crime was committed here. Yes, those responsible should be prosecuted. But the reason why people are confused here is because they, rightfully, don't think proper discretion was applied given what actually transpired. McIntosh has proven over and over he'd rather throw the book at someone to appear tough on crime instead of using discretion. That's the real story here.

By: kadrmas21 on 12/20/09
Secret Squirrel, I do not believe there was a grand jury involved in this. Under Minnesota law, the only crime you are required to have a grand jury to decide whether to indict or not is first degree murder. Second degree murder or third degree murder like what Heard is charged with, that can be charged directly by information by a prosecutor without the consent of a grand jury. They can go to a grand jury if they so choose, but unless it is first degree murder it is the prosecutor's discretion whether to charge by information or charge by indictment.

Now in terms of Danny boy McIntosh, aka the Mike Nifong of Steele County, who by the way, is in line to become the County Attorney when Doug Ruth retires next year, McIntosh, this is just the latest example of his unethical behavior. Truth be told, he knew his case was weak, while Heard is a guy that is easy to like and hard to feel sorry for, that said, the person that died after using drugs that were at Heard's house is kind of in the same boat. It is kind of a double whammy for McIntosh. While he has a defendant that is not sympathetic the problem for McIntosh the victim is not really sympathetic either.

Now a jury may convict, who knows, but I will say, I think what Heard's defense is aiming at is this. They will claim that Brandon Karsten stole the painkilling patch without Heard's knowledge. Thus Heard did not know that Karsten had the patch, thus not guilty of third degree murder. That is what they will argue.

However SS, while you say about the law is technically correct, basically all these preliminary hearings, grand jury hearings all that, 99 percent of the time they are a farce. The grand jury is like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed crap. It is a one sided affair where only the prosecution is allowed to present 'evidence' the defense is not allowed to present anything or even be present in the room. So no wonder 99 percent of the time an indictment is handed down. As for preliminary hearings, that is even worse. I have NEVER heard of a judge at least around here dismissing a case at a preliminary hearing because they did not feel the evidence was sufficient to bind over for trial. In theory yes a preliminary hearing is where the prosecutor presents evidence at whether or not there is enough evidence to bind the case over for trial. But truth be told a preliminary hearing is where they bind the case over for trial, nothing more.

Waste my taxes, you did indeed miss the point sir. I was not arguing about illegal or legal. The point I was arguing is that both drugs and cars have a very real potential to be dangerous if used irresponsibly. Even if used responsibly someone can get in a car accident and die through no fault of their own. That is what I was arguing. Are we going to put people on trial because they sold something to someone and that something had the potential to cause death and the person died? I mean that is a ridiculous argument. My argument on the other hand was not idiotic at all. Also, nice cheap shot. I had the feeling you would accuse me of being 'pro drug dealer' all because I was offering a point of view that different from yours. Lets see, you have so far called me an idiot and said that I am pro drug dealer. Classy man, classy. Maybe you should go back to whining about taxes.

Actually Secret Squirrel, the word Capital does not always mean a crime as in capital punishment. In many states, even states that do not have the death penalty, the word capital is applied to mean a life sentence crime where if convicted you get an automatic life sentence. It is a good thing Minnesota does not have the death penalty. A total waste of money and in any event I think if we did have it, very few people would be on death row here. To be honest, I think a lifetime in general population is more punishment than death row would or could ever be.

Also Secret Squirrel, to get back to your point about the mistrial. That is an interesting opinion that you feel the defense should have opposed it. A judge though can declare a mistrial without either side asking for it. Was it McIntosh that actually asked for the mistrial? If it was him, he is up to something that stinks. Basically, had Heard been convicted and this stuff had come to light, he would have got a new trial, no doubt about it. The defense attorney could have fought the motion but I do not think it would have worked. This appears to be a violation that McIntosh did not become aware of until after the trial had started.

However the double jeopardy rule is hardly infamous. It is a great rule to have and we have it for good reason. If you did not have that I can guarantee you prosecutors would abuse their power (they already do it enough now, just imagine if they were able to try people over and over again until they got the verdict they wanted).

I am assuming you meant that without the mistrial you think that Heard would have been acquitted? Maybe so, maybe not, I guess we will never know. However double jeopardy does not apply to mistrials. So, McIntosh will get another bite and possibly another bite at the apple. Usually three trials is the limit. If a verdict cannot be reached after a third trial than the judge usually does not allow a fourth trial to happen. Remember a few years ago with McIntosh's ego being hurt in terms of Dr. Lyle Coleman?

In terms of this Boudreau mess, I am vaguely familiar with the case. However it does not surprise me McIntosh and the gang are switching strategies. That is what the state likes to do when their original theory falls apart. Oh, lets just switch strategies and accuse him of something else once the thing we were actually accusing him was proven not true. Also, good luck with Judge Larry Collins. A career prosecutor before he was appointed a judge. I believe he was the county attorney for Waseca County for nearly 30 years.

By: Jeff on 12/20/09
kadrmas21, I think you and secretsquirrel are really on the same page here. He is pointing out that Minnesota law does allow McIntosh to press for third degree murder charges, which is true. You are pointing out, through analogy, that McIntosh used improper discretion, which I also contend is true. SS, started off by saying "There are enough holes in this case to strain noodles" which I take as his own way of agreeing with you that McIntosh used improper discretion.

In any event, what I'm curious about is your statement that "Dan McIntosh aka the Mike Nifong of Steele County was screwing around and hiding evidence." While I do believe you, the article above says that this evidentiary issues was "one not previously privy to either the prosecution or defense." Can you shed more light on this?

In State vs Ramey, Minnesota's high court made it easier to bring prosecutorial misconduct cases in the state. "We have identified numerous kinds of trial conduct that are improper for prosecutors. ... Nevertheless, we continue to see cases in which prosecutors persist in clearly proscribed conduct," Justice Helen Meyer wrote in September for a 4-3 majority in State vs. Ramey... Many defense lawyers and legal experts, however, think it's about time that courts stop warning prosecutors about misconduct and start doing something to stop it. See: http://truthinjustice.org/crackdown.htm and http://wcco.com/local/Minnesota.prosecutorial.misconduct.2.363878.html

By: wastemytaxes on 12/20/09
"Are we going to put people on trial because they sold something to someone and that something had the potential to cause death and the person died?"

--Ummm, yes, in this SPECIFIC case we are.

By: kadrmas21 on 12/20/09
Thanks for explaining nothing and wasting everyone's time wastemytaxes. You sure love to piss and moan and you run your yapper a lot yet say very little. Anyway, enough of you and your nonsense.

Jeff, that is a very good question. My own opinion on the subject, while McIntosh did not present it, I have a hard time believing that he did not know about this brand new testimony before the trial started. Can I prove this? No. I am not claiming I can prove it. It is merely my opinion. Basically though, what the court, specifically Judge Christian, was saying, claiming, is that neither McIntosh nor the defense were aware of this witness before she came forward. Thus the mistrial as there was no time for discovery, cross examination, etc.

The problem I have with McIntosh is that well, he has a track record of this crap and it reeks. The tough on crime crowd might love him but I think he is a disgrace and someone who likes to pick and choose when he wants to follow the laws he is supposed to be enforcing. However even if we assumed that McIntosh did not know this witness existed before (which again I doubt and if they did not know, what does that say about him and his investigators not finding her?) than it made sense for him to ask for a mistrial because it might solidify his case. However I am not a big believer in McIntosh's integrity but again that is just an opinion.

By: wastemytaxes on 12/20/09
"Anyway, enough of you and your nonsense."

My nonsence? Everything you post is nonsense. You sure seem to know alot but have no proof of anything.

By: kadrmas21 on 12/20/09
Neither do you wastemytaxes, neither do you. Also it is nonsense not nonsence.

By: secretsquirrel on 12/20/09
Without referencing McIntosh' history, I was getting a bit confused as to whether the discussion was sticking to the article or to the Boudreau case. Wow! There is So much going on in the justice system over here that it makes your head spin.
kadrmas21 - Thanks for all of the information and line by line discourse. Again, this is like going back to school and I love that!
Jeff - Terrific moderation and it really helps when someone can ties the threads together. Makes for a much more informative and productive discussion.
therealtruth - I admire your passion over the Boudreau case. I DO see a pattern of poorly made discretionary decisions being made by the prosecutor's office.
Subsequent opinions:
1. I think Mr. Boudreau should be simply left alone. Enough is enough and it will serve no useful purpose to pursue it.
2. The girlfriend in the Karstens case should not have gotten a deal any more than Heard.
3. Jeff - I agree with the law that holds the seller of drugs to be held responsible for any deaths as a result of someone else's decision to take them. I just do not think the prosecution can prove he gave or sold Karsten the Fentanyl.
4. I would rather have the prosecution wait until they have a very good case before proceeding with it haphazardly as appears to have happened here.
Thanks folks! This has been a fascinating discussion! Enjoy that white, fluffy crap coming down. I will sit in my nest and hope it's the last one of the season. LOL

By: quinn on 12/20/09
Odd that nothing is said about the methamphetamine in his system, and who he procured it from. Let alone charges against that person.

By: Jeff on 12/20/09
Quinn, according to the criminal complaint, Heard was also reputed to be a meth dealer. See: http://www.owatonna.com/news.php?viewStory=112524

I would assume evidence was presented Heard sold the meth to Karsten or else it would be mind-bogglingly stupid IMO to try to argue the death was caused by only one particular half of a known deadly cocktail.

By: quinn on 12/20/09
Jeff, quite frankly, that crossed my mind. Not being at all legal minded just seemed strange that it hasn't been mentioned. Also, since you're near, what is your take on any responsibility the driver played in this? Understanding the need to put a dealer behind bars, it just doesn't seem prudent to let someone who picks up an "unresponsive" driver bipassing a local hospital and takes him to the perps house and "eventually" to the hospital a skate on this.

By: kadrmas21 on 12/21/09
Yes, I will say this, I disagree with the driver being offered a deal in this case. She basically drove Karsten to the hospital after first driving him to his house and all that and he lived in Faribault, yet instead of driving him to the Faribault hospital she drove him to the Owatonna hospital. So yeah, she knew that he was either dead or overdosed and would die without proper medical care right away. Like I said, it makes sense that she knew one of those two things was going on, thus why she left him in the car, she did not want to be held responsible for his death.

McIntosh pled her out, I am assuming to make his case stronger against Heard. However this could actually backfire on McIntosh. Ever seen those cases where a prosecutor will put on a bunch of jail house snitches claiming a person confessed to them in jail? Well, that actually tends to backfire on prosecutors because a lot of these guys are well, criminals. They will say or do anything to get out of jail or get time reduced on their sentences even if it means lying about what someone else said. Well this has backfired on prosecutors because it makes them look desperate.

The same can be said about plea bargaining some of these people out. The driver throws Heard overboard trying to make herself seem like a victim too. She gets a plea bargain. My guess, she got a plea bargain for no prison time, probably just a suspended county jail sentence and probation. My guess is, regardless of what a jury thought about Heard they would probably not find the driver credible. I mean she basically left Karsten to die if he was not already dead.

By: Jeff on 12/21/09
Quinn, I only know about this case what I read here, so consider what I say in that context. That being said, let's start with the majority opinion here that proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt will be extremely difficult in this case. If you choose to hit a home run, it then follows you need at least one really strong witness to sway the jury who is not legally afraid of implicating themselves in the process. So you make a deal and swing for the fences. Sure you more often strike out, but if you're trying to make a name for yourself, nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

By: kadrmas21 on 12/21/09
Also Jeff, interesting that you visit the site truthinjustice! I visit that site regularly although until you pointed it out I had never seen the case on prosecutor misconduct.

By: Geneva_Queen on 12/22/09
>>Heard admitted to police that Karsten had stopped by his home looking to buy a Fentanyl patch.

Lock him up for selling, case closed. Who cares what charges they slap on him as long as he's locked up for a long time. One more drug dealer off the street.

I don't know why the rest of you are posting 50 pages of blah, blah, blah. Looks like a simple enough case to me.

Stephanie Nelson should be put away for letting her boyfriend die by prolonging needed medical attention. She should also be charged with being plain stupid.

Of course since we're talking about stupid, maybe I should post my opinion about the one using the drugs in this case?

By: therealtruth on 12/23/09
GQ - When lawyers are involved - life is not so simple! What lawyer in their right mind would keep things simple if they are charging by the hour????
Life without lawyers - now there's an interesting concept. Can't live with them, but can live without them...


Lawyer jokes - bet there are at least 50 pages of those around!

By: kadrmas21 on 12/24/09
Geneva Queen, speaking of stupid lets talk about people who hate on other people and run their mouths about things they know little to nothing about. You are highly ignorant, know nothing about the law and have no business running your mouth in this forum.