CO CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Teller County, 22 Nov 2018 - #56 *ARREST*

[Seattle1]

Discovery involving prosecution witnesses is often limited to their observations and their oral and written statements. An experienced Colorado criminal defense lawyer will seek much more than that – among those items sought is evidence related to the following:

• Prior inconsistent statements (possibly including inconsistent attorney proffers,
• Statements or reports reflecting witness statement variations,
• Benefits provided to witnesses including:
  • Dropped or reduced charges,
  • Immunity for their testimony,
  • Expectations of downward departures or motions for reduction of sentence,
  • Assistance in a state or local criminal proceeding,
  • Considerations regarding forfeiture of assets,
  • Stays of deportation or other immigration status considerations,
  • S-Visas,
  • Monetary benefits,
  • Non-prosecution agreements,
  • Letters to other law enforcement officials (e.g. state prosecutors, parole boards) setting forth the extent of a witness’s assistance or making substantive recommendations on the witness’s behalf,
  • Relocation assistance,
  • Consideration or benefits to culpable or at risk third-parties,
• Other known conditions that could affect the witness’s bias such as:
  • Animosity toward defendant,
  • Animosity toward a group of which the defendant is a member or with which the defendant is affiliated,
  • Relationship with victim,
  • Known but uncharged criminal conduct (that may provide an incentive to curry favor with a prosecutor),
• Prior acts under Rule 608
• Prior convictions under Rule 609
• Known substance abuse or mental health issues or other issues that could affect the witness’s ability to perceive and recall events

I just had a funny thought.

In studying the list above on the discovery that PF's defense may have on KK (as allowed for prosecutions witness), what a shirt show it will be if the defense goes after her her mental stability!

Can't you hear it now -- "That girl's crazy - and clearly she's devoid of any shame bones!"

 

[PommyMommy]

I just had a funny thought.

In studying the list above on the discovery list that PF's defense may have on KK (as allowed for prosecutions witness), what a shirt show it will be if the defense goes after her her mental stability!

Can't you hear it now -- "That girl's crazy - and clearly she's devoid of any shame bones!"

Any way you look at it, it's going to be interesting. By "it," I mean PF's trial.

(Clarifying since the current discussion also includes KK's case in which she has already plead guilty - for anyone confused or new to the thread.) MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Yes, and the below is what I was referring to--a discovery demand by KK's attorney and standard language talking about circumventing the rules of discovery. BBM. There are also other parts, it is a multiple page document. It is specifically pointed out in her motion.

1. The handwritten and/or typewritten notes of investigators and victim witness advocates must be preserved and disclosed to the defense if they contain the substance of recitals of oral statements made by witnesses. See People v. Shaw, 646 P.2d 375, 381 (Colo. 1982); People v. Thatcher, 638 P.2d 760, 767 (Colo. 1981). Although the work product of a prosecuting attorney is not discoverable, see Crim. P. 16(I)(e)(1), non-discoverable material may be excised and the remainder provided to the accused. People v. District Court, 780 P.2d 332, 336 (Colo. 1990). 2. Because the witnesses' versions of events are all told differently to each party involved, anything that is stated regarding the alleged incident is potential impeachment. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150(1972); People v. District Court, City and County of Denver, 808 P.2d 831(Colo. 1991); People v. District Court for the 17th Judicial District, 793 P.2d 163 (Colo. 1990); People v. Doss, 782 P.2d 1198 (Colo. 1989). 3. It is improper for the prosecution to attempt to circumvent its obligations by deliberately avoiding taking notes or reducing statements to writing. People v. Anderson, 837 P.2d 293 (Colo. App. 1992); US v. Van Nuys, 707 F.Supp. 465 (D. Colo. 1989). 4. In fact, the defense moves for the Court to order that any and all future discussions or interviews with witnesses in this case, about the events of the case, be tape-recorded by law enforcement or by the agent of the prosecution. The defense will purchase a hand-held tape-recorder for the prosecution to make certain that resources are not an issue, and that all interviews are taped for future accuracy and verification.

Full 7 page document which has much more: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/D-02 Discovery Demand.pdf

She takes no chances anything could be miscontrued--it is far more in depth than some I have seen.

Haaaa -- you definitely left out the reference above, but now we know that we're both talking about the case applicable Rule 16 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure (where those demands came from)!

 

[ilovechili]

Haaaa -- you definitely left out the reference above, but now we know that we're both talking about the case applicable Rule 16 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure (where those demands came from)!

I am sure I did and I often do not link and am lazy and at times assume people have read the same. I did refer to Krystal, discovery, her attorney, etc. and the document.

I will clarify far more carefully in the future.

Any way you look at it, it's going to be interesting. By "it," I mean PF's trial.

(Clarifying since the current discussion also includes KK's case in which she has already plead guilty - for anyone confused or new to the thread.) MOO

As far as KK's case and "new" or confused posters, they are intricately linked, PF's and KK's case, and she is not sentenced yet. There is also likely discovery in PF's case that can affect Krystal's. Or I have forgotten that the plea deal is not dependent on her testimony and that it is still sealed from the public as to all of the details?

Are we having fun yet?

 

[PommyMommy]

I am sure I did and I often do not link and am lazy and at times assume people have read the same. I did refer to Krystal, discovery, her attorney, etc. and the document.

I will clarify far more carefully in the future.



As far as KK's case and "new" or confused posters, they are intricately linked, PF's and KK's case, and she is not sentenced yet. There is also likely discovery in PF's case that can affect Krystal's. Or I have forgotten that the plea deal is not dependent on her testimony and that it is still sealed from the public as to all of the details?

Are we having fun yet?

Yes, I'm aware they are linked.

I'm also aware that KK hasn't been sentenced.

New members to the thread may not be aware that the document you were referencing is directly related to KK's case, though.



MOO

 

[MassGuy]

As far as KK's case and "new" or confused posters, they are intricately linked, PF's and KK's case, and she is not sentenced yet. There is also likely discovery in PF's case that can affect Krystal's. Or I have forgotten that the plea deal is not dependent on her testimony and that it is still sealed from the public as to all of the details?

Are we having fun yet?

KK got what she got. It’s done. It’s over.

The only question is how long her sentence will be, and odds are it will involve little to no jail time.

Her plea deal is contingent upon her testimony, and the only way it goes away is if she tells a big provable lie about something material to the case.

Ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Hatfield]

KK got what she got. It’s done. It’s over.

The only question is how long her sentence will be, and odds are it will involve little to no jail time.

Her plea deal is contingent upon her testimony, and the only way it goes away is if she tells a big provable lie about something material to the case.

Ain’t gonna happen.

You are probably right and after Brady destroyed my Giants Thursday I shouldn't even reply today because I am still sore over that.

The only thing I wanted to add was I have been jaded by the Holly Bobo case and the way the TN State literally went back on a plea deal with one of the people involved in that case.

It was quite a fiasco at the time and the guy even ended up dead in Florida shortly after the state tore up the plea deal with him.

Unless KK already lied or ommited something major and it comes out during the trial that she is much more involved somehow, then the deal she has will probably stand. And like has been pointed out, its the sentencing part that is still up in the air till after PFs trial.

So I guess the good thing for us to keep in mind is the judge in her case is purposely waiting to sentence her based on what comes out at the trial. So I am guessing if we learn of some things that does not make the judge in her case happy, then it will likely affect the length or severity of her sentence.

 

[k-mac]

I remember reading all of this myself. Especially Kelsey going shooting- that stood out to me, perhaps because she was a single Mom and didn't feel as safe without a weapon to protect her and her daughter. I did wonder a couple of times, if there was something she was concerned about that caused her to feel safer with the gun- perhaps visits from strangers with coffee might have raised her alarm a bit?

I suspect Kelsey had previous incidents.
maybe to make her 'feel like she's loosing it"
someone who wants you dead isn't past doing scary weird things to with your mind.


moo

 

[ilovechili]

Yes, I'm aware they are linked.

I'm also aware that KK hasn't been sentenced.

New members to the thread may not be aware that the document you were referencing is directly related to KK's case, though.



MOO

Funny, since I mentioned it since early in the posts that were being responded to, that it was KK's attorney, her case, etc. I should have linked it no doubt.

Yes, I should remember that new posters have no idea about how things work here.

Thank you for the reminder. I often see posts that I want to point out the same perhaps I should to help them out.

I generally do not reference something I can't back up but I should link, I agree. I thought the gang here was probably up on the documents.

All good!

Edited to correct.

 

[PommyMommy]

Funny, since I mentioned it since early in the posts that were being responded to, that it was KK's attorney, her case, etc. I should have linked it no doubt.

Yes, I should remember that new posters have no idea about how things work here.

Thank you for the reminder. I often see posts that I want to point out the same perhaps I should to help them out.

I generally do not reference something I can't back up but I should link, I agree. I thought the gang here was probably up on the documents.

All good!

Edited to correct.

You're welcome.

It was discussed in depth the early part of February so I'm pretty sure everyone's up on it but if you need a refresher, I'd look at the thread starting about February 5th.

The link to the documents concerning KK's case can be found here: Colorado Judicial Branch - Teller - Cases of Interest - People v. Krystal Jean Kenney

The document you referred to: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/D-02 Discovery Demand.pdf

Hope that helps. MOO, IMO, JMO

ETA: Another thought - it might be easier to just look at the media thread instead of doing all that searching.

Posted February 5th:

CO - CO - Kelsey Berreth, 29, Woodland Park, Media, Maps and Timelines *NO DISCUSSION*
FEB 4, 2019

KKL - Summons to Appear https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/Summons to Appear.pdf

KKL - Order to Proposed Felony Summons https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/Order Kenney Proposed Felony Summons - Granted.pdf

KKL - Complaint and Information https://www.courts.state.co.us/user.../Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/Complaint.pdf

FEB 5, 2019

KKL - Entry of Appearance https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/D-01 Entry of Appearance.pdf

KKL - Discovery Demand https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/D-02 Discovery Demand.pdf

Colorado Judicial Branch - Teller - Cases of Interest - People v. Krystal Jean Kenney

Here's a good article by Sam from February 6: Documents reveal Kenney seeking leverage in court, expert says

And, another from KRDO - Also February 6, updated February 8:
Idaho nurse to be charged in connection with Kelsey Berreth's disappearance

 

[GordianKnot]

Wondering what happened with the consumptive testing on those alleged teeth? Remember? We’ve never more about it. Anyone think they are holding that info until trial??

Those consumptive testing results definitely won't be released until trial.
Even then, we're only likely to hear about the results in court if that piece of tooth was in fact KB's.
If it wasn't hers, it's irrelevant to the case.
Having said that, I think we're going to hear about that piece of tooth at trial.
I do think it was KB's.

JMO.

 

[MsBetsy]

You are probably right and after Brady destroyed my Giants Thursday I shouldn't even reply today because I am still sore over that.

The only thing I wanted to add was I have been jaded by the Holly Bobo case and the way the TN State literally went back on a plea deal with one of the people involved in that case.

It was quite a fiasco at the time and the guy even ended up dead in Florida shortly after the state tore up the plea deal with him.

Unless KK already lied or ommited something major and it comes out during the trial that she is much more involved somehow, then the deal she has will probably stand. And like has been pointed out, its the sentencing part that is still up in the air till after PFs trial.

So I guess the good thing for us to keep in mind is the judge in her case is purposely waiting to sentence her based on what comes out at the trial. So I am guessing if we learn of some things that does not make the judge in her case happy, then it will likely affect the length or severity of her sentence.

I wonder what happens if the defense claims that she knows what PF did with the body or she was with him when he disposed of the body.
They apparently are going to point the finger at her and attempt to show her involvement in "parts" of the crime. She claims to have never seen the body and he told her he disposed of it in the dump or a river or something.
What if PF claims she was with him, or helped him, indicating that she was more involved than she admitted?
I can imagine a jury might believe this.
Did she ever say exactly when he dumped the body? Was it before or after she headed back home?

Imo

 

[ilovechili]

"Ms. Kenney has never stepped foot into the Teller County courthouse. She has no prior experience with the criminal justice system. Allowing the media’s request to have cameras in the courtroom pointed directly at Ms. Kenney creates an unnecessary risk of compromising her ability to focus on this important proceeding. Additionally, expanded media unduly detracts from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court. "

And more in the document:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...gs - Objection to Expanded Media Coverage.pdf

In one of the paragraphs they even reference Frazee and his hearing.

Even though the doc is from months ago, I smh at her rights and her interest in solemnity decorum and dignity...

Jmo.

 

[ilovechili]

KK got what she got. It’s done. It’s over.

The only question is how long her sentence will be, and odds are it will involve little to no jail time.

Her plea deal is contingent upon her testimony, and the only way it goes away is if she tells a big provable lie about something material to the case.

Ain’t gonna happen.

I missed her testimony?? And where is it said it will be little to no jail time? That sounds decided.

Jmo.

 

[MassGuy]

I missed her testimony?? And where is it said it will be little to no jail time? That sounds decided.

Jmo.

Huh? She hasn’t testified yet. The deal is based on her agreement to testify against him.

And yes, the sentencing range is decided. She could face a maximum of 3 years, and a minimum of probation.

Kenney will not be sentenced until the end of Frazee’s trial. A possible sentence ranges anywhere from probation to 18 months in prison. If the judge decides there was an aggravating factor in the case, sentencing guidelines extend to a possible sentence of 3 years in prison.

Krystal Kenney pleads guilty to tampering charge, will testify against Frazee

 

[PommyMommy]

"Ms. Kenney has never stepped foot into the Teller County courthouse. She has no prior experience with the criminal justice system. Allowing the media’s request to have cameras in the courtroom pointed directly at Ms. Kenney creates an unnecessary risk of compromising her ability to focus on this important proceeding. Additionally, expanded media unduly detracts from the solemnity, decorum and dignity of the court. "

And more in the document:

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2019CR17/2019-02-06 10-19-23 2019 02-06 - LEE - Pleadings - Objection to Expanded Media Coverage.pdf

In one of the paragraphs they even reference Frazee and his hearing.

Even though the doc is from months ago, I smh at her rights and her interest in solemnity decorum and dignity...

Jmo.

As Seattle1 said earlier, she has a very good attorney. Lots of discussion about it back in February. MOO

 

[GordianKnot]

I wonder what happens if the defense claims that she knows what PF did with the body or she was with him when he disposed of the body.
They apparently are going to point the finger at her and attempt to show her involvement in "parts" of the crime. She claims to have never seen the body and he told her he disposed of it in the dump or a river or something.
What if PF claims she was with him, or helped him, indicating that she was more involved than she admitted?
I can imagine a jury might believe this.
Did she ever say exactly when he dumped the body? Was it before or after she headed back home?

Imo

BBM:
I can promise you that ain't going to happen.

PF is going on trial for the murder of KB.
For PF's attorney to to claim that "KK knows what PF did with the body" is to admit that PF did something with KB's body.
For PF's attorney to claim that "KK was with PF when he disposed of the body" is to admit that PF disposed of KB's body.

It would be entirely self-defeating.
If that was what the defense intended to do, the prosecution wouldn't even need to put on their case, because the defense would basically be doing their job for them.

The defense is going to have to try to somehow invent a scenario whereby KK could have killed KB herself on November 22nd, the fact that KK was in Idaho and not Colorado on November 22nd, notwithstanding.

Maybe they'll insinuate she has telekinetic powers, like Carrie, or something.

The problem for PF's attorney is that whatever defense they choose, it's going to be a work of pure fiction.

Juries like facts.

Not fiction.

JMO.

 

[Seattle1]

You are probably right and after Brady destroyed my Giants Thursday I shouldn't even reply today because I am still sore over that.

The only thing I wanted to add was I have been jaded by the Holly Bobo case and the way the TN State literally went back on a plea deal with one of the people involved in that case.

It was quite a fiasco at the time and the guy even ended up dead in Florida shortly after the state tore up the plea deal with him.

Unless KK already lied or ommited something major and it comes out during the trial that she is much more involved somehow, then the deal she has will probably stand. And like has been pointed out, its the sentencing part that is still up in the air till after PFs trial.

So I guess the good thing for us to keep in mind is the judge in her case is purposely waiting to sentence her based on what comes out at the trial. So I am guessing if we learn of some things that does not make the judge in her case happy, then it will likely affect the length or severity of her sentence.

DA Mays would not publicly disclose the terms of KK's plea agreement, but I believe there are likely stipulations for events that are not at all related to this case -- in addition to KB's murder.

I was following a US District Court case (federal charges), and a defendant with a plea deal for her testimony lost her deal prior to the trial start. Deal was revoked, and she was convicted for two felonies in separate crimes (including the initial crime).

Defendant managed an RV park in Florida, and prior to the trial, using stolen credit cards, she was filling gas tanks of RV's at area petro stations.

I remember when she was before the Judge for "breach of the agreement," it was very clear that Courts treat plea bargains as an enforceable contract. Both legal consequences or remedy apply-- depending on which party breaches the agreement.

I've since equated plea agreements similar to parole/probation violations where defendant can also be banned from committing new offenses.

I still think it would be a good idea for the community to write to the judge, imploring the Court to impose the most severe penalty allowed under her agreement. (Isn't max time for tampering with evidence 3 years).

A real brainiac.

 

[Seattle1]

I wonder what happens if the defense claims that she knows what PF did with the body or she was with him when he disposed of the body.
They apparently are going to point the finger at her and attempt to show her involvement in "parts" of the crime. She claims to have never seen the body and he told her he disposed of it in the dump or a river or something.
What if PF claims she was with him, or helped him, indicating that she was more involved than she admitted?
I can imagine a jury might believe this.
Did she ever say exactly when he dumped the body? Was it before or after she headed back home?

Imo

The defense can assert anything they want, but they won't have the facts to support their allegations.

Best way to irritate a jury is to spew out an allegation, without any support to back it up!

Who's going to testify for the defense that KK was with PF dumping the body? PF isn't going to take the stand!

Prosecution has the burden of proof here, and they will be able to present all the digital evidence when KK arrived WP, and when she departed, and what/where she was doing during those hours including Sonic, coffee, Franch, and gas stop in town -- proving the defense allegation not credible if not impossible.

Although not admissible in court - I also wouldn't be surprised if KK had to take a polygraph test before DA signed off on her deal. DA had a duty to verify KK's story -- including that she does not know where the remains are, and only that PF said river or landfill.

(There's currently a case in WA in process - Ben Eastman- 17, murdered by his childhood friend and the friends brother on first day of summer vacation. Terms of brothers guilty plea agreements required polygraph exams prior to sentencing, and to our shock and dismay - the exams resulted in 2 additional people charged. Total charged now stands at 6).

MOO

 

[MsBetsy]

BBM:
I can promise you that ain't going to happen.

PF is going on trial for the murder of KB.
For PF's attorney to to claim that "KK knows what PF did with the body" is to admit that PF did something with KB's body.
For PF's attorney to claim that "KK was with PF when he disposed of the body" is to admit that PF disposed of KB's body.

It would be entirely self-defeating.
If that was what the defense intended to do, the prosecution wouldn't even need to put on their case, because the defense would basically be doing their job for them.

The defense is going to have to try to somehow invent a scenario whereby KK could have killed KB herself on November 22nd, the fact that KK was in Idaho and not Colorado on November 22nd, notwithstanding.

Maybe they'll insinuate she has telekinetic powers, like Carrie, or something.

The problem for PF's attorney is that whatever defense they choose, it's going to be a work of pure fiction.

Juries like facts.

Not fiction.

JMO.

Yes, but isn't the intent to cast doubt on her story, too?
I would think they will try to make her story sound unbelievable at every chance they get.
They can't prove that she was there at the time of the murder, and it would be hard to prove that Kelsey was killed at another time.
What else can they say to indicate she was more involved than she admitted, without trying to prove that she was responsible for the murder instead of him?
They said they weren't going to try to prove the alternate suspect theory, just that she was implicated in parts of the crime.
What else can they do besides point to any lies she may have told?

So if that's impossible, I can't really think of another scenario, so let's just suppose they point out something else she may have lied about, and the jury is so confused and can't determine which one could be lying about what, or they aren't convinced that she told the truth about something significant.
Would it be a mistrial and they would have to have another trial? Could PF be found not guilty?
Or does everyone think it will be a sure thing that the jury will believe her and PF will be found guilty without a doubt?
It seems like it would be a lot more complex than everyone just finding her story credible. Imo