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. 

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


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.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s