Tag Archives: Keith Kutska

Healing Through Expression…

Leave a reply

On Monday, March 9th, myself and colleagues and fellow advocates, Joan Van Houten and Johnny Johnson were given another opportunity to share our mission on blog talk radio. Joan is the step-daughter of Michael Johnson, one of six convicted men in the Wisconsin Monfils case and Johnny is a retired crime scene expert who helped to find legal representation for Johnson and the other four men still behind bars. We were guests for this interview on Charlotte View Blog Radio, based in Charlotte, North Carolina. My friend Nina Bingham came through for me again to connect us with this show’s host, Claudia Pureco. Both Nina and Claudia co-hosted the segment and were helpful in calming Joan’s and my pre-show jitters.

During the interview Joan expressed her frustration over having endured many years of silence in regard to the tragic events involving these men, countless family members, and close friends. This is still a heavy burden in a community that has moved on and dismissed any pleas for help.

These interviews have given Joan an opportunity to reopen the dialogue and begin to heal through expressing her deepest heartfelt thoughts about a personal tragedy that has shaken her world for over twenty years. In the short time that Johnny and I have been involved in this mission we’ve seen our share of the apathy surrounding the issue of wrongful convictions, and this case. For us, this experience to support the voices that portray these trials and tribulations is liberating. We can only imagine what it means for Joan. Claudia and Nina, please accept our gratitude for offering this platform, to us, to Joan and to all victims unjustly victimized by an inescapable wrongful conviction.

Michael_Johnson_web

Michael Johnson. Artwork courtesy of artist/writer, Jared Manninen 

Footnote: The poem featured in this interview was read by my niece, Jordan Teague.

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.

Here’s a ninety-minute interview on blog talk radio from Feb 25, 2015.

 

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.