Category Archives: Monfils Case

Life Lines…

4 Replies

A few years ago, Mike and I completed the requirements to visit some of the five Wisconsin men in prison. But we didn’t follow through with the visits just yet. This was noticed by my friend, Kathleen, while reading an article about my mission. During that time Kathleen’s son was in prison on a drug charge and she understood how important it was to her son that she go to visit him. I ran into Kathleen after she had read the article and she asked me, “Why have you not gone to visit these men? It means so much to have that outside contact.” It sparked shame within.

First of all, it was not a quick process to get onto a prisoner’s visitor list. This involved contacting the men, having them request the necessary forms, and then mailing them to me. When I had first received them, I filled them out and sent them to the appropriate address. The men then received confirmation that we were approved for a visit.

But having our names on their list took away from the possibility of obtaining other prospective visitors. An inmate can only have 10-12 people on their list at any given time. We simply dismissed the fact that this process had inconvenienced and disappointed them. We should have been more thoughtful about the intent.

I considered what Kathleen had said and I broached the subject once again with my husband, Mike. I was grateful for his concern over me going alone to a prison, and his thoughtfulness toward my feelings when he agreed to go with me on these visits. I initiated the process once again. We decided to start with one visit and see how it went. We made it through the approval process again and received confirmation to visit Keith Kutska. Now it was time to follow through.

Celebrating his sixty-fourth birthday this year, Keith has spent approximately one third of his life in prison. Through Keith’s revealing letters over a four-year span, we felt we knew him well and we both looked forward to meeting him. Saturday, February 21, 2015 was the big day. We we both felt anxious about going to the prison after reading the endless restrictions regarding dress code and the dos and don’ts listed on the instruction sheets that came with the visitor forms. Who wouldn’t be? We decided to use the two and a half hour drive time wisely, to mentally prepare for the experience. We decided we’d make it a positive one.

We entered a small building and were greeted by a guard who was helpful with explaining the procedure. We soon felt at ease and even exchanged light banter with him. We put our belongings into a small locker and returned to the receiving area. We then passed through the metal detector. We understood these ones were highly sensitive and had heard stories of people who’d been denied admission after failing to pass through the detector without setting off the obnoxious buzzer. You had three chances before being denied access. We were successful and breezed through on the first try! The guard even commended us. We were in!

P1040674

As we walked to the next building where the prisoners were housed, I don’t remember feeling especially frightened or worried even when hearing the loud clanging of the doors as they unlocked and re-locked behind us. We slowly navigated our way to the visitors lounge and upon arrival, I marveled at how normal everything and everyone looked. Each table was occupied by one prisoner in drab green garb and the family members and/or friends that had joined them. According to the instruction sheet, as many as 12 individuals could visit during one session. Although restrictions about touching were clearly stated on the instruction sheets, children were sitting on the laps of the inmates and we saw lots of hand holding. The atmosphere was as normal as any gathering place on the outside, and we were pleasantly surprised at the relaxed feeling in the room.

I stepped up to the desk where a guard was sitting. “You’re at table number seven,” he said to us. Mike and I sat, observing our surroundings. After ten minutes, Keith entered a far door. We recognized him at once. We immediately waved to him. He waved back and motioned to us that he had to show his badge to the guard at the desk. When he approached us, we shook hands and embraced. As we sat, Keith’s face beamed. But he didn’t try to hide an overwhelming bout of emotion that followed. Tears formed as he spoke about a February eleventh visit with Steve Kaplan, his new attorney. Steve had visited Keith on the same day as I had attended an exoneration hearing for Mario Victoria Vasquez in Green Bay. During their visit, Keith and Steve had lightheartedly discussed concern over my bold presence at the Courthouse, given my public role in the Monfils case. But Keith was deeply touched by my support for Mario. I hoped Keith could see he was not alone on this sentimental journey and that we shared the emotions he felt. There was much to gain from this friendship. Knowing Keith gave us valuable insight into the perseverance of the human spirit. I felt that ours was and is a bond strong enough to transcend time.

As expected, Keith was not shy and our conversation never waned for two hours; the amount of time allotted for weekend visits. In that time, we covered everything from current activities in the Monfils case, Mario’s exoneration, politics, human behavior, the stars, my latest writings, more human behavior, and the future. Both Mike and Keith had many common interests. At one point, I sat silent as they solved every problem imaginable between them. Once in a while I was able to insert a thought or two into the conversation. I even managed to divert their attention long enough to have photos taken! I chided Keith for not smiling in this photo but he laughed and said, “I’m a prisoner, I’m not supposed to smile.”

mike-and-joan-treppa-w-keith-kutska-at-jackson-correctioanl-2-21-2015

Mike and Joan Treppa with Keith Kutska. (Photo courtesy of Jackson Correctional Institution)     

The guard stopped by to inform us we had five minutes left. It was then when Keith said things that will always stay with me. As tears fell he said,”Between the span of time in 2010, when the Wisconsin Innocence Project had failed to secure a new trial for Reynold Moore and the onset of legal representation by Steve Kaplan in 2013, your letters had kept me alive.” My heart sank. I was speechless. Keith continued and reminded us that the letter in my birthday card to him two years ago had contained the announcement about the law firm getting involved and that he would once again have legal representation. It was just then that I remember comparing Keith to a big cuddly teddy bear; one that is typically a source of great comfort. However, this one was in great need of solace. How desperate I was to provide that for him. But according to his admission, it became apparent that I already had.

Keith’s emotional demeanor was and is a glaring expression of what these travesties of injustices can do to the toughest of souls. Witnessing the wasted years behind bars for a crime that never happened left me feeling angry and more determined than ever to see this mission through. Kathleen was correct in her assertion. Throughout this entire journey, it never ceased to amaze me the importance of reaching out to others and how little effort it actually takes to provide a simple but much needed connection or life line, no matter the situation. Any act can seem insignificant to us but can hold great value to its recipient/s, more so than one could ever imagine.

 

 

Was it Murder…Pt 2

Leave a reply

This segment examines the ineptitude and legal challenges of the defense attorneys in a joint trial setting.

Ineffective Assistance of counsel…

“The expert report of pre-eminent Wisconsin criminal lawyer, Stephen Glynn, Esq., explains why Kutska’s defense counsel failed to provide the diligent, thorough, and skillful representation that was required in this case and how that failure prejudiced Kutska’s defense and claim of innocence. In particular:

  1. Kutska’s defense counsel was obligated to (a) consult with and retain an independent forensic pathologist to challenge and disprove, if possible, Dr. Young’s homicide testimony and also to (b) investigate the strong possibility that Monfils had committed suicide. The need to investigate the question of suicide was apparent in light of Monfils’ mental and emotional history, the stresses in his life, his experiences in the Coast Guard, his pre-occupation with death and drowning, and his failed marriage. Instead, defense counsel made the uninformed and catastrophically prejudiced concession of an element of the charge–that Monfils had been beaten and murdered as Dr. Young and the prosecution contended. As Mr. Glynn states, those concessions and failures lacked any strategic justification.
  2. Had defense counsel investigated the medical examiner’s findings and conclusions and whether Monfils had taken his own life, they would have shown the jury why the prosecutor’s homicide theory was not merely doubtful, but flatly wrong, thereby undermining the credibility of certain key witnesses. Defense counsel’s concessions and failures led the jury to assume instead that the prosecution’s case was based on solidly reliable scientific, medical and other evidence, including the false testimony of the prosecution’s two most critical fact witnesses—Brian Kellner and David Weiner.
  3. Defense counsel had ample means, including through the use of formal discovery in the companion civil wrongful death litigation, to obtain the evidence with which to develop a powerful suicide defense. Indeed, suicide was then, and still remains, the only theory that is fully consistent with both the evidence that existed and the evidence that did not exist.
  4. Defense counsel’s concessions and failures limited Kutska’s defense to the sole contention that someone else had beaten Monfils and disposed of his body in the vat. The overriding problem with that defense, however, was that Kutska’s counsel lacked sufficient evidence pointing to anyone who might have done so in the closed environment of the mill. Moreover, Kutska was the person in the mill that day with a proven reason to be upset with Monfils and who had been with and near Monfils in the minutes leading up to Monfils’ disappearance. Kutska was, therefore, the prime focus of the homicide investigation. Defense counsel for the other defendants likewise could not point a convincing finger at anyone (other than one or more of the co-defendants, including Kutska). As counsel for one co-defendant candidly admitted in his closing argument, “[w]e have no theories about this case.” Similarly, in post-conviction proceedings, Kutska’s counsel never (a) attacked Dr. Young’s homicide testimony or the prosecution’s contention that Monfils had been beaten and then deposited into the vat where he died and never (b) investigated or presented the evidence pointing toward Monfils’ suicide.
  5. Kutska’s counsel was further deficient at trial and in post-conviction by failing to show that (1) Sgt. Randy Winkler’s coercive tactics had corrupted the investigation and the trial with perjured statements and testimony from certain key witnesses; (2) Winkler perjured himself and engaged in other acts of dishonesty; (3) other key prosecution witnesses, including David Weiner, James Gilliam, and James Charleston, also perjured themselves; (4) Weiner had an arrangement or understanding with the prosecution for his testimony that both he and the prosecution denied; and (5) the prosecution’s arguments were illogical, conflicting and made up.

Corroborated Facts:  On November 21, 1992, the body of Tom Monfils was found. Approximately two and a half years later, on April 12, 1995, six men were arrested for his alleged murder and on September 26, 1995, a joint trial involving these six men began. Then on October 28, 1995, all six of these men were found guilty of murder.

P1040654

Keith Kutska listens during the Monfils trial in 1995. (Photo courtesy of the Green Bay Press-Gazette)   

The trial was conducted as a joint effort with all co-defendants lined up in a row next to their attorneys. The book suggests with separate trials the six men would not have been convicted of murdering Monfils because trying all of the men together automatically destroyed each man’s ability to create an independent defense. The idea that this joint strategy might confuse the jury was an unavoidable consequence. Despite the judge’s directive to the jury that not all testimony pertained to all of the defendants, evidence against one of the men was automatically applied to all of them. This idea was unmistakably evident in a letter from a juror to Mike Piaskowski years after he was exonerated. “It was too much to process and too easy just to make the same judgment for all of the defendants.”  Coupled with the complexity of information laid out during the twenty-eight-day trial, three of the six men were named Michael.

The defense attorneys recognized the unfair burden of a joint trial and they filed several pretrial motions demanding separate trials. Tax-dollar savings and consideration of the emotional state of the victim’s family won, compelling the trial judge to deny each of these motions.

There was an order in which each attorney was allowed to question each of the eighty-one witnesses. This system could not be altered during the entire trial. Attorney number one was always given the first opportunity to ask his question. If attorney number five, for instance, was not satisfied with the answer and raised it again when his turn came up, the judge would dismiss it as “asked and answered” and the attorney was told to move on to his next question.

Unfortunately, all of the defense attorneys agreed at the onset of this joint trial to disregard the suicide theory…period! All else aside, this was the most crucial mistake they could have made because, in fact, it was their only defense. That mistake cemented the convictions of all six of these men.

Nurturing a Legacy…

2 Replies

“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” ― Maya Angelou

Inspirational quotes often get acknowledged, passed around but then soon forgotten, as though their purpose is for someone else to fulfill. I saw this one and felt compelled to share its wisdom as a remembrance of the amazing Maya Angelou who passed away in 2014. It represents much of how I view myself.

It’s a new year and my commitment to help five wrongfully convicted men is entering its sixth year. From the start of this journey, I’ve had supporters enthusiastically board the freedom train. Some who’ve ridden with me from the start are still with me while others have exited. Supporters come and go and I’m okay with that because this expedition is long and fraught with laborious uphill battles. I appreciate that we all have our limits and that it’s easy to grow weary. All any of us can do is try our best which to me is priceless. My spirits remain high in this calling I was chosen for. I know my commitment will never falter. Knowing that my whole life has prepared me for the challenges I face now keeps me steady and on course.

I think of how my spirit was silenced for most of my younger years. I remember feeling different, even ashamed of who I was. I never thought of myself as a leader. Life was about keeping a low profile and walking in the shadows of everyone else. I was desperate to fit in, to be liked, to have nice clothes. But that never happens to poor kids. Poor kids are stupid, frowned upon, funny looking, and different. Not worth the attention…at least, not nice attention. Because of those stereotypes, being different was not an attribute to be proud of.

It was a new experience and a blessing to finally realize my potential and to understand what I was meant to accomplish, and to not be ashamed of the hardships that got me to this place and time. When I was introduced to the plight of the wrongfully convicted I realized that my life would be incomplete until I opened my heart to receive the gift of leadership. That was when it really became clear that being different was essential and that the characteristics I possessed were exactly what were needed to pursue this legacy. I am still seen by others as different but what is great about that is my own understanding about being different. It takes courage to stand out. It takes abilities and strengths that many don’t have. What I feel now is a strong sense of self pride because I understand my life has valuable and that it can benefit others if I nurture my strengths in the proper way.

Our everyday actions become a culmination of our ethics…our biases which are cultivated through past experiences, observations and lessons learned. We generally call this influence. I prefer to define it as inspiration. Inspiration to me suggests provocation which leads to action. And I am certainly all about that. An example of this is when that lone red fox saunters through our backyard in broad daylight without a care in the world. He/she most definitely inspires the squirrels and rabbits to hightail it out of there with the utmost expediency! In that respect, inspiration motivates amid the presence of chaos. This is an awesome revelation for me. It is one thing to be influential but we often forget about our capacity to inspire. It’s empowering to realize we constantly initiate and react to inspiration on a daily basis. How we develop over time heavily depends on interpreting the tiniest indicators of inspiration such as that subtle squeeze of reassurance in a handshake, the emphasis on a specific word in a sentence, or a subtle facial expression that speaks more effectively than the spoken word.

Most of us don’t appreciate the multi-directional highway on which inspiration travels in everyday life. It comes in many guises both positive and negative. If we are indecisive and ignorant to its true meaning, we risk sabotaging the benefits, and miscalculating who we are meant to become. Keep in mind that we all travel on that same highway but what differentiates our paths is our ability to effectively sort out and process all of those tiny subtleties, categorize them into some sort of manageable semblance and to accurately define who we are based on the importance we’ve placed upon each one. This is not an easy task. But it is a vital one if we are to succeed in leaving this place better than when we arrived, or encouraging any kind of a worthy legacy.

Each morning as I catch up on the latest news and learn about all of the tragic events that have and are occurring all around the globe, I welcome the solace of knowing I try to be as akin in my movements as that lone fox. My step is one of purpose and determination, done with an intent to rouse, to initiate change, to abolish ignorance, and to lead with good intentions rather than with empty words. I know I am on the right path to gaining further knowledge and strength regarding my own potential. It is my wish that everyone experience the same in their lives because I’ve seen all too often, the anger associated with an unaccomplished and unfulfilled life.

There is so much I want to accomplish as I enter into this new year. I am hopeful that time will permit me to do at least most of it. Come along if you wish-stay however long you can. But know that I will not judge as I sit on that train for the duration of this ride!

This past year marked real progress in my mission to help free these men when the very competent and highly respected Minneapolis law firm of Fredrikson & Byron filed a motion on October 31st on behalf of Keith Kutska; the lead suspect in the case. This means that it could be heading back to court. Hmmm…not a bad legacy for an unknown suburban wife and mother from Blaine, Minnesota.

In the next few weeks I will elaborate on aspects of that motion.

May you all have a wonderful New Year…