Cop’s Family Sent Me Hatemail, So I Got the Video Exposing What He Did

Monongalia County Sheriff’s Deputy Lance Kuretza was indicted by the Feds as a result of this never-before-seen bodycam footage showing him suddenly confronting and arresting an innocent man, who was sleeping in a hotel room. I tried to get the footage over two years ago. Since then, he was acquitted by a federal jury in his criminal prosecution. Now he’s back to work as a deputy. But should he have a badge in light of this footage, showing what really happened that night?

The hatemail that jogged my memory about the incident:

Viral Twitter post about the indictment that first got people talking about it:

The US Attorney’s statement about the incident, from a radio show appearance (IIRC):

Here’s the press release by the DOJ about the indictment of Deputy Kuretza:

Photo taken by the police during arrest processing:

My blog post from when he was indicted: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2022/08/24/wv-deputy-arrested-indicted-by-feds-county-refused-my-foia-for-body-cam/

My first video from over 2 years ago: https://youtu.be/sY_zGpZ5iJg?si=Odt1ydME95-X3r0U

Police report with injury photos:

Here’s the Indictment:

Memorandum Order denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss:

Excerpt of Jury Trial Transcript:

Jury Instructions from the criminal jury trial:

Jury Verdict Form:

An absolutely insane screenshot:

Monongalia County Sheriff’s Quote (recently retired now) about the trial result, commenting that he was “glad” the jurors came to the same conclusion he/his department had:

A media report about the trial, revealing shocking testimony from an EMT an unnamed deputy lied to her about the cause of Mr. Graciano’s injuries:

EMS was eventually called to the department and the jury heard from one of the emergency medical technicians (EMT) who responded to the call.

Camden Boggs, who worked as an EMT with Star City at the time, said a deputy in a black shirt told him Graziano “was drunk downtown starting fights and got beat up.” He could not say whether that deputy was Kuretza.

Boggs said a fight made sense because he initially saw blunt force trauma and at minimum a fracture to the nose or eye and at maximum a traumatic brain injury. He testified that Graziano’s right eye was so swollen, EMTs could not pry it open to evaluate his pupils for brain injuries.

Initially, Boggs said Graziano wanted to go to the hospital, but after being told by an unidentified deputy that by not going to the hospital he could see the magistrate sooner and go home sooner, Graziano then refused to go with the EMTs.

Fourth Circuit caselaw I referred to in the video regarding the 4th Amendment rights of hotel tenants is here. This is based on the US Supreme Court opinion from Stoner v. California.

The RAW footage, showing that not only did I not edit in a misleading way, I substantially censored the footage in order to comply with Youtube’s guidelines. The raw footage is much worse. Here is the full, unedited, footage from Lance Kuretza’s bodycam from January 18, 2018:

The full, unedited, uncensored, footage from Isaac Coe’s bodycam from January 18, 2018:

The full, unedited, uncensored, footage from Lance Kuretza’s bodycam during the arrest processing portion of January 20, 2018:

The full, unedited, uncensored, footage from Sgt. J.D. Alexander’s bodycam from January 20, 2018:

Here’s the full complaint from the civil lawsuit that was settled for $175,000:

Here’s a clip of Deputy Ethan Mongold encouraging Deputy Kuretza to give Mr. Graciano “the solution.”

Here’s the portion of the trial transcript (from above) that features Deputy Ethan Mongold testifying under oath to the jury that he admits that is indeed his voice that can be heard encouraging Kuretza to “give him the solution,” but unfortunately doesn’t remember saying it, and doesn’t remember why he would have said it – and also doesn’t know what “the solution” was.

Inside the Murdaugh Trial With a Lawyer Who Was There | Larry Foreman (The DUI Guy+)

I’ve been asked to do something on the Murdaugh trial. I want to bring you some inside information about what really happened at the Murdaugh trial. So I reached out to my colleague Larry Foreman. You may know him as The DUI Guy+ from Youtube. He covered much of the Johnny Depp trial from inside the courtroom, and also was able to get into the Alex Murdaugh trial in South Carolina. So I figured, who better to hear from than Larry. He was in the courtroom, sitting right next to some of these people, watching the reaction of the jurors, and so on. Like me, he’s a real lawyer with real courtroom experience that you can watch yourself on his channel.

My Client Films Officer Appearing to Overdose After Suspect Allegedly Throws Narcotics

It hit the news yesterday that several Oak Hill, West Virginia police officers had supposedly overdosed after narcotics were thrown at them by a suspect they were attempting to arrest. I was already looking into the science behind these claims when I found out that a client of mine actually witnessed what happened, and began filming with his cell phone.

“Sheriff’s Office: Two officers in Oak Hill overdose after suspect throws drugs at them” was the headline. Here’s the media report:

What were the chances that a client of mine just happened to be driving by when it happened? Compare the footage with the press release and let me know your thoughts on the matter. I have some initial thoughts, but want to look into it some more.

Here’s the statement issued by the sheriff’s department:

Here’s the footage:

How to talk to police without a lawyer

Should someone talk to the police without a lawyer present?

  1. The criminal justice system overwhelmingly depends on people to unwittingly incriminate themselves for convictions, which they do.
  2. If a criminal suspect invokes the right to counsel, or the right to remain silent, they generally don’t incriminate themselves.
  3. A criminal suspect need only request a lawyer for all interrogation to stop. They DO NOT need to already have a lawyer – just to ask for one. Just a lawyer in general. These are magic words which stops an interrogation.

Custodial interrogation cannot take place with Miranda warnings and a waiver of the rights to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present before and during questioning.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

When are Miranda Warnings required to be read? Miranda warnings are required to be given when a suspect is in custody and being interrogated OR when a suspect believes that he is in custody and being interrogated. “Interrogation” includes not only express questioning but also its “functional equivalent,” namely, any conduct “that the police should know [is] reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” When is someone in custody? That depends. Were they asked to exit a vehicle during a stop? Were guns drawn? Was force used? Were they placed in handcuffs? Were they told they weren’t free to leave?

A suspect can waive Miranda rights, but cannot waive the reading of Miranda warnings by law enforcement. Miranda warnings may need to be read again by police if too much time has elapsed in between the reading of the warnings and the subsequent interrogation.

When are Miranda Warnings NOT required to be given?

Officers can conduct general on-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general fact finding without Miranda warnings. Officers can ask about the guilt of others/third parties without giving Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings don’t apply to voluntary statements made prior to interrogation. Miranda warnings don’t apply to statements of guilt made to persons other than law enforcement. Miranda warnings don’t apply if the person interrogated is not in custody.

Miranda warnings are generally not required at traffic stops. See Pennsylvania v. Bruder , 488 U.S. 9, 109 S. Ct. 205 (1988). In this case, the Supreme Court re-emphasized that ordinary traffic stops do not involve custody for the purposes of Miranda, and therefore, police do not need to inform those stopped for traffic violations of their Miranda rights unless taken into custody. Officers can generally ask any questions they want to suspects who are not in custody. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). “An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop . . . do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”

What about silence? Post-arrest silence by a defendant after Miranda warnings have been given is inadmissible against the defendant. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). If a defendant gives a statement, however, his silence as to other matters may be admitted. Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (1980); see United States v. Mitchell, 558 F.2d 1332, 1334–35 (8th Cir. 1977). A defendant’s pre-arrest silence may be admitted, Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) as well as silence after arrest but prior to warnings. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (1982).

When can an officer not interrogate a suspect at all?

An officer may not interrogate if the suspect has requested a lawyer.

An officer may not interrogate if the suspect has in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning stated that he wishes to remain silent.

What sort of behavior by officers may render a confession invalid in court?

A confession MAY be invalid if obtained as the result of withholding food, drink or bathroom access. A confession may be invalid if obtained following threats, coercing or tricking a suspect into waiving Miranda Rights. A confession may be invalid if the interrogation is too long; or, If physical force is used; or, If promises to help a suspect if he or she confesses; or, If the officer misrepresents the body of evidence collected against the suspect