More on Sandra Grazzini Rucki’s Guilty Verdict

SGR PIC

From Michael Volpe:

Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was found guilty of hiding her daughters from their father. The decision came after the judge disallowed the majority of her defense’s evidence.

 

Advertisements

Backstrom Backlash

Backlash Against Backstrom in the Aftermath of Grazzini-Rucki Verdict

barbwireheart

Local Citizens Rally Support for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Express Disgust with Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom…

(July 28, 2016) Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was found guilty of six counts of felony deprivation of parental rights. This occurred after substantial amounts of evidence were suppressed by Judge Karen Asphaug, and withheld from the jury.

Judge Karen J Asphaug

Judge Karen J Asphaug

After the verdict was read, Sandra was taken into custody. A strange move considering that Sandra had been released on her own recognizance (Feb. 24th) after the original $1 million bail was dropped.Sandra  poses no threat to society, and there are no indications that she is a flight risk. She has no prior criminal history, has remained law abiding, and has attended all court dates. Despite this, bail was set at $100,000 without conditions or $50,000 with conditions. Attorney Stephen Grigsby said it is “incomprehensible” how the court could increase her bail.

Citizens from Dakota County and surrounding areas expressed disgust at County Attorney James Backstrom and his mishandling of the case. The citizens showed up at the courthouse in a strong show of solidarity to give donations to contribute towards Sandra’s bond, so that she would be released from jail.

There were comments heard among the crowd – they were upset with James Backstrom that he exploited Grazzini-Rucki case for political reasons and that the children were subjected to unnecessary trauma.One anonymous comment, “The county used this case to try to make a point, and exploited the children.Another concern was that Dakota County exaggerated the Grazzini-Rucki case, and incurred unnecessary expense with tax payer dollars.

County Attorney James Backstrom

County Attorney James Backstrom

Due to their efforts, and support, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was released on bond. Sentencing is scheduled for September 21st.

Jury Deliberations

Dakota Co. Courthouse

The jury started deliberations in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case at 1:00 pm today. No verdict reached. Will resume deliberations on Thursday, July 28th at 9:00 am.

At the beginning of this trial, a sign was posted on the courtroom door that stated:

In order to ensure a fair trial, the Court hereby issues the following ORDER:

1. All electronics devices must be powered off, or subject to confiscation for the length of the trial.
2. No audio or video recording of any form.
3. No person may wear clothing or accessories that are designed to influence the jury.
4. Any person who diisplays facial expressions or utters verbal outbursts that may influence the jury or witnesses will be removed from the courtroom.
5. Any person who violates this order will be removed from the courtroom and may be found in contempt of court and subject to the penalties therefor.
Signed by Judge Aspaugh

Okay, let’s recap some of the fairness that Dakota County has demonstrated in 19HA-CR-15-2669 State of Minnesota vs Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

  • Illegal withholding of evidence.
  • Wrongful arrest and imprisonment by US Marshals based on fabricated charges by Lakeville PD.  Charges: Assaultive  Felony – Fugitive- Kidnap Minor

Osceola County Uniform Charging AffidavitRisk Asssessment

  • Unfair chance to present a defense: All criminal charges against David Rucki were ruled inadmissable by Judge Karen Aspaugh at the beginning of the trial. David Rucki-Judge Knutson-Criminal Defense Matters. Today, Dakota County Assistant Attorney Kathryn Keena objected 4 times throughout the closing arguments of the defense. When questioned regarding reason, she stated “never mind.” Numerous other disruptive behaviors noted during the closing arguments: Keena ripping paper, Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom shifting loudly in his seat (why is he even there?) and David Rucki leaving and returning to the courtroom. Sounds to me like they’re a little nervous,  so maybe the jury isn’t rigged after all?!
  • Collusion – where two persons enter into a deceitful agreement,usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party. David Rucki, Dakota Co. and media haven’t even pretended to maintain a discreet appearance in front of the public.

4bebc-brodkorb_rucki_love_elliot_donehower_19av-fa-11-1273_012616

It should also be noted that David Rucki was shaking hands with Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom in the court hallway today.  

  • Charge Stacking: The practice of charge stacking is a simple and terribly effective method for prosecutors looking to win cases. The technique entails finding as many possible criminal counts to “stack” against the defendant in order to strengthen the core case of the prosecution.This strategy is made wide open to prosecutors, because the main deterrent against stacking charges is the law of double jeopardy. Charge Stacking: Gambling with People’s Lives

UPDATE: Attached is the four-page amended criminal complaint against Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cods3kKUsAI86TB.jpg

It’s always been the State’s position that the girls didn’t run away.” Kathryn Keena Assistant Dakota County Attorney (Stated at the May 12th Contested Omnibus Hearing ~ State of MN vs. Doug and Gina Dahlen). 

Don’t change that dial. We’ll have more tomorrow!

Some content on this page was disabled on November 8, 2017 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from Michael Brodkorb. You can learn more about the DMCA here:

https://en.support.wordpress.com/copyright-and-the-dmca/

Michael Cindy Bradykorb

The Tattle-Tale  Season 2 | Episode 10 Bradykorb

He doesn’t learn his lesson until his antics have a negative consequence in a way he didn’t envision.

case Judge issues 3rd warning media/bloggers at courthouse covering case. Stop tampering with jury members. 
Bradykorb

Missing in Minnesota @missinginmn During a break in the trial, MacDonald was being loud & obnoxious in hallway, confrontational – I told her not to badger me.6:17 PM – 25 Jul 2016

The Real Story: Judge Aspaugh called a break before the 6 threatening gunshots from David Rucki were to be played for the jury. Michelle MacDonald calmly comented to Michael-Cindy that he probably didn’t want to return to the courtroom to listen as he didn’t want to hear the violent behavior of David Rucki and wouldn’t report on it anyway. (Go figure, he never mentioned it.)
Start at 4:35 to hear gunshots.

On the same day of the trial (Day 5), July 25th, 2016, Michael-Cindy tattled to the bailiff that Dede Evavold was a witness and couldn’t be in the courtroom. Oh but wait, she had been released from her subpoena on July 21st, 2016.

Funny how Michael-Cindy also never reported on the surveilance video of David Rucki’s stalking behavior at Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s residence and photos of stalking and harassing at US Bank with children in the car as witnesses. Also never mentioned is the fact that an order for protection was in place.

Today closing statements are scheduled to begin at 10AM. It’s clear that this has been a rigged case from the beginning. We can only hope that the jury is able to see through the minutia and that they are given a thorough explanation of the affirmative defense:

2015 Minnesota Statutes

609.26 DEPRIVING ANOTHER OF CUSTODIAL OR PARENTAL RIGHTS.

Subd. 2.Defenses. 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 verdict must be unanimous, so even if one juror disagrees with the rest of the jurors and votes differently, a verdict can’t be returned to the court. This right provides great protection to the defendant and requires the government to have to prove to each juror that the defendant committed the charged crime.

Excerpts from Why Juries Must Agree

Typically, judges declare mistrials when a jury is unable to reach unanimous agreement on conviction or acquittal.

In the event of a mistrial, the government has a choice: It can abandon the prosecution entirely or try for a retrial.

The requirement puts a serious line of defense between the accused and the government, with its vast resources, said Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a law professor at the University of Dayton. “You want to stack the deck a little against the government,” he said.

The difficulty in achieving a unanimous verdict also serves a purpose. “There’s evidence that those juries deliberate longer, lead to discussions that might not otherwise take place,” said Sherry Colb, a law professor at Cornell.

STAY TUNED!