Phatty
Member
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.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.
Babbitt described the voice-mail messages as "the most important pieces of exculpatory evidence."
("Exculpatory" means proving your actions were not illegal...)
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.
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. . . . This decision is about the ability of Huggett to get a fair trial, not a vindication of his actions that night.
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.
The news article doesn't give us all the text messages that were exchanged.
Pretty much, and I see little profit in continued speculation.we'll never know.
Pretty much, and I see little profit in continued speculation.we'll never know.