Kylr Yust Motion To Dismiss 2-23-21
Kylr Yust Motion To Dismiss 2-23-21
Comes now defendant, Kylr Yust, by and through his attorneys Sharon Turlington, Molly
Hastings and Matt Vigil, and moves this court to dismiss the charges in this case for failure by
the state to investigate exculpatory evidence in this case in violation of Brady v. Maryland, and
the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Articles 8 10, 19 and 21(a) of the Missouri Constitution. Mr. Yust is asking that this court
dismiss these charges. If the court declines to dismiss the charges then Mr. Yust is asking that all
evidence and witnesses associated with Officer Joshua Meierer be excluded and that the
prosecution be barred from arguing that Mr. Yust's alibi from 2007 is false. In support of this
On May 4, 2007, Kara Kopetsky left Belton High School and was not seen by her family
again. Immediately, her family told law enforcement that they suspected Kylr Yust. Ms.
Kopetsky had an Ex Parte order against Mr. Yust for an incident in which he made her get in his
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
car when she got off of work and drove around talking to her about their relationship. He pulled
over at a Domino's Pizza and she got out of the truck. Ms. Kopetsky was not harmed during this
incident. Ms. Kopetsky's family referred to this as a "kidnapping" and sought an order of
protection. This incident occurred approximately two weeks before Ms. Kopetsky's
disappearance. Despite this incident, Ms. Kopetsky contiued to see Mr. Yust voluntarily.
After Ms. Kopetsky's disappearance, Mr. Yust was questioned by the police. Mr. Yust told
police that he did not have anything to do with Ms. Kopetsky's disappearance and that he had no
knowledge of what happened to her or where she was. Mr. Yust told law enforcement his
whereabouts for the day of May 4, 2007. Mr. Yust went to his grandparents home at 8735
Crescent around noon and then he went to Kansas City, Missouri to visit his great aunt Mary
Jean Zanone at the Carondelet Manor rehabilitation facility. At some point during the day Mr.
Yust and his grandfather went to a gas station and purchased gas for Mr. Yust's truck.
Afterwards, Mr. Yust returned to Belton and went to Kyle Reynolds apartment around 3 pm and
then went to band practice at the home of Nick Yeates. After band practice Mr. Yust returned to
his apartment in Belton. Law enforcement officers interviewed numerous witnesses who verified
that Mr. Yust returned to Belton around 3 pm and was at Kyle Reynolds apartment and then went
Police did not, however, thoroughly investigate Mr. Yust's whereabouts prior to his return to
Belton at 3 pm.
Phone records indicate that Ms. Kopetsky called Kyle Reynolds at 10:25 am and spoke with
him briefly. This is confirmed by Mr. Reynolds. Phone records of Ms. Kopetsky also show that
intersection of 155 and Highway 71. Due to this information, police conducted extensive
At 1 pm Mr. Yust would have been either at his grandparent's home, or, already in Kansas
City. Location data from his phone would have shown that Mr. Yust was nowhere in the vicinity
of Ms. Kopetsky. However, law enforcement failed to ever obtain location data for Mr. Yust's
phone just for the date of May 4, 2007. There is location data for Mr. Yust's phone for other
dates in May 2007. No explanation has been provided for how or why the only data that is
missing is for the only time frame which is of importance to Mr. Yust's defense. It should be
noted that location data was obtained for numerous other witnesses including Kyle Reynolds,
Edwin Hall (a suspect in another young woman's disappearance in the area around this time),
members of Ms. Kopetsky's family. There are also no reports which indicate any attempt by law
enforcement to retrieve or reconstruct Mr. Yust's location data if there had been error or problem
on the part of T-Mobile. In fact, in almost 300 disks of discovery and approximately 20,000
pages of documents the only mention of the fact that Mr. Yust's location data for May 4, 2007 is
missing is in 2017 when the FBI phone analyst John Hauger does a CAST report for the
prosecution. In his deposition Agent Hauger stated that at this point he could only speculate as to
why location data for Mr. Yust is missing only for the date of May 4, 2007. Agent Hauger also
stated that at this point there is no way that this data, or the reason that it might be missing, can
ever been known. Agent Hauger did state that it is possible that "there is a page missing:."
Even without the location data, there were several independent avenues of confirmation for
Mr. Yust's whereabouts on May 4, 2007 between 10:25 am and 3 pm. Law enforcement did talk
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
to Al Yust on two occasions. Al Yust confirmed that Kylr went to Kansas City with his
grandparents and that they bought gas. However, law enforcement did NOT speak with Doris
Yust who was also present on this trip. They did not speak with Mary Jean Zanone who was the
relative they visited. They did not go to Carondelet Manor and check for records, security
cameras, guest sign in registers or talk to staff. Nor did they go to the gas station and check for
security camera footage, receipts or talk to staff. All of this information was available to be
investigated at the time and all the witnesses and locations were within one half an hour's, or less,
drive from the Belton. At this time defense counsel is not able to recreate any of this evidence
because: Doris Yust passed away in 2009. No records can be retrieved from Carondelet Manor
because the facility has been sold numerous times since 2007 and they have retained no records
prior to 2013. Mary Jean Zanone is now in her mid-80s and does not have an accurate memory
of these events. The first time anyone contacted her regarding this incident was when defense
investigators did so more than a decade after they occurred - despite the fact that Ms. Zanone has
lived in approximately 20 minutes from Belton, the entire time. Defense counsel also cannot
verify any information from the gas station because they do not keep employment records or
Not only did law enforcement fail to investigate exculpatory evidence regarding Mr. Yust,
they failed to adequately follow up on leads which implicated other suspects. Another suspect,
Billy Bayes, made multiple statements regarding his involvement and knowledge of Mr.
Kopetsky's death. While law enforcement illegally tracked Mr. Yust's vehicle, asked witnesses to
wear wires and published articles in the media containing damning information regarding Mr.
Yust, this information was documented, at best, or ignored. Detectives on the case stated in
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
depositions that they quickly disregarded the theories that Mr. Bayes, or any of his associates,
were involved. They also disregarded any statements allegedly made by Mr. Bayes and his
associates as bragging and attention seeking. No one who came forward with information
regarding Mr. Bayes involvement was ever asked to wear a wire or act as a confidential
informant. Even a report from the wife of a detective who overheard a conversation in a
restaurant about Ms. Kopetsky's body, which led her to get the license plate of the car of the
people who were having the conversation and then ask her husband to run the plate, was not
taken seriously enough to investigate. This witness told law enforcement that the plates on the
car of the person talking about Ms. Kopetsky's body belonged to Crystal Bayes, the sister of Billy
witnesses and events. The most egregious examples of this are that Billy Bayes was questioned
by Sgt. Swanson of the Belton police. Sgt. Swanson did not write any reports of this
interrogation. This interrogation was recorded and Sgt. Swanson did not have this transcribed or
put into evidence. This tape was discovered in a desk drawer in January 2020 after Sgt. Swanson
had retired. Additionally in this desk drawer was an interview with someone who came forward
in 2013 saying that an individual named Joshua Castle was in Belton on May 4, 2007 and
afterwards had to remove his back seat because it was soaked in blood. Joshua Castle was
allegedly involved in drugs and prostitution. Although the car in question was searched in 2013,
no attempt to interview Joshua Castle, determine his location on May 4, 2007 or any other follow
up was ever conducted. Joshua Castle is currently in federal custody and appears to be an
informant. He is not cooperating with any attempt by the defense to question him at this time.
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
Another instance of failure to document involves allegations that someone named IcePrincess
contacted Chris Davis, a friend of Kara Kopetsky's, after her disappearance. Mr. Davis believed
that these messages had to either be from Kara Kopetsky, or Kylr Yust, trying to slyly cover his
tracks. Although an IP address for IcePrincess was found, there are no reports of any
investigation to clearly identify who was sending these messages. In his deposition, Mr. Davis
stated that he believed it had to be Kylr Yust since it now seems clear that Ms. Kopetsky was
dead. Defense counsel, using the IP address and information contained in the police reports, was
able to locate a witness, who lives in another state, who in fact uses the online ID IcePrincess.
This witness described being pulled over by law enforcement back in 2007 and asked if she was
harboring a teen runaway named Kara. This witness stated she had no idea at the time why this
was happening and that she had no knowledge of someone named Kara. This witness then
confronted her sister, who was a "true-crime" addict that followed cases and frequently tried to
get involved in the investigations. It became clear that the sister had been using the witness's
computer. Defense counsel then provided all the IcePrincess messaging and a sampling of Mr.
Yust's texts for analysis by forensic linguist Dr. Robert Leonard. Dr. Leonard looked at the
materials and confirmed that the IcePrincess messages were not consistent with Kylr Yust's
linguistic patterning. In all other significant instances of online claims that Kara Kopetsky was
alive law enforcement tracked down the source, had an agent or officer go to the source and
interview the individuals associated with the computer and document their work disproving the
information. This is true even for an instance when the FBI sent an agent to an address in New
Hampshire. However, in this instance, there are no reports whatsoever regarding the pulling over
and questioning of the witness regarding IcePrincess. If any additional investigation was done
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
regarding this by law enforcement, it is not documented and we will never know. Failure to
document or disclose exculpatory information is one of the highest forms of misconduct by law
enforcement.
Additional information that would have been available to law enforcement that was never
investigated was Kylr Yust's TDOA location data from 2016. Despite sending a subpoena asking
for proprietary location data, such as NELOS, the KCPD phone experts never received or
followed up on TDOA data for Mr. Yust's phone. TDOA records can give locations for a phone
even when the phone is not placing texts, phone calls or using data. This would have been
known by phone experts in 2016 - and they did obtain NELOS location data for Jessica Runions
which is ATT's proprietary location program. Because the last NELOS hit for Ms. Runions is in
Belton while Mr. Yust's phone is actively texting and hitting on a cell tower at his home location
at 8735 Crescent, additional location data would have shown Mr. Yust's location during times
when he was not placing phone calls, texting or using data. This information should have been
Law enforcement completely failed to investigate Jessep Carter. It appears that Mr. Carter
had a phone that he used independently from his wife Crystal Taylor in 2016. However, this
remains unclear and no records were ever obtained. Mr. Carter's truck was seen in Kingsville,
Missouri on September 9, 2016 and video shows someone putting a gas can into his vehicle. Mr.
Carter, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Robinson have stated that Mr. Carter was at a "job" during the day on
September 9, 2016. Significantly, phone records from September 2016 show that Mr. Yust was
Shortly after Mr. Yust was arraigned and pled "Not Guilty" Mr. Carter committed an arson at
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
5901 Manchester. This location is his uncle's home. This location was one that Mr. Carter, Mr.
Yust and Ms. Taylor had visited on the evening of September 9, 2016. Police later searched burn
barrels at this location because Mr. Yust burned something while there - which is confirmed by
witnesses. However, police found no evidence related to Ms. Runions' disappearance. After
setting the fire, Mr. Carter attempted to stop the fire department from putting it out. Law
enforcement interviewed Mr. Carter's uncle, however, they did not conduct a full investigation
despite the fact that Jessep Carter was a witness in a major homicide investigation who had just
burned down a crime scene. Witnesses who were supposedly present were never interviewed.
Reports indicate that a woman drove off in Mr. Carter's vehicle. This woman was never
interviewed and her name in the reports appears to be incorrect. Defense counsel contacted the
person named in the reports, which include a birthdate and social security number. However, the
person who has that name, birthday and social security number does not know Jessep Carter at all
and produced records indicating that she was in the hospital in Mississippi at the time of the fire.
Obviously, this is a complete failure to investigate what happened in the events surrounding this
fire.
Several weeks later, Mr. Carter was found dead in his cell at the Jackson County Jail. He had
hung himself using a sheet. In his cell he left a notepad which contains symbols and numbers in
a coded message. This notebook is accompanied by a bible which has certain pages
bookmarked. Inmates frequently use codes to communicate so that law enforcement does not
know what they are discussing. Defense counsel attempted to see if these evidentiary items had
been retained. However, the jail did not retain any of this material. Nor did the police send these
materials or photographs of these materials to be analyzed - unless this was done without any
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
documentation - which is certainly possible in this case. There are a few blurry photographs of
In summation, the defense has identified at minimum the following areas where law
enforcement has failed to investigate relevant evidence, or lost evidence that is potentially helpful
to Mr. Yust:
1. Failure to investigate his 2007 alibi by not interviewing Doris Yust, Mary Jean Zanone, staff
2. Failure to locate records from Carondelet Manor including possible security tapes, sign in
3. Failure to locate surveillance tapes from the gas station Kylr Yust and Al Yust went to on May
4, 2007
4. Failure to obtain, or locate, or even actively destroying location data for Kylr Yust's phone on
May 4, 2007
8. Failure to obtain text messages between Katelynn Farris and Kylr Yust
10. Failure to obtain TDOA phone location data for Kylr Yust in 2016
11. Failure to investigate fully what phone number was used by Jessep Carter in 2016
12. Failure to properly package Mr. Yust's clothing to see if accelerants were present which is
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
pertinent in the determination of whether he participated in burning Jessica Runions vehicle
13. Failure to interview witnesses present when Jessep Carter burned down 5901 Manchester
14. Failure to investigate Jessep Carter's suicide including preserving and analyzing his encoded
suicide note
15. Failure to document investigation of IcePrincess messaging which excluded Mr. Yust as the
author of the posts leaving the impression that Mr. Yust was engaging in activities to "cover his
tracks"
The United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland , 373 US 83 (1963) affirmed that the
Constitution requires the prosecution and the police to investigate and disclose material which is
exculpatory to the defense. In conjunction with Brady , the ABA Guidelines for ethical conduct
in prosecution places upon the state a duty to pursue all relevant evidence.
Case law dictates that whether the state violated its duty depends on whether it failed to
pursue that evidence in order to secure a tactical advantage. In this case, with the state failing to
investigate basic facts such as Mr. Yust's alibi, his phone's location data at critical times in both
Kopetsky and Runions (when they obviously did this for other witnesses), failing to document
exculpatory evidence such as excluding Mr. Yust from creating the IcePrincess messages and
failing to write reports regarding questioning Billy Bayes, document this questioning in the case
files, failing to question Joshua Castle, investigate Jessep Carter's phone records or whereabouts
and resorting to illegal investigative practices such as tracking Mr. Yust without a warrant (which
resulted in no inculpatory evidence) they certainly were seeking to secure a tactical advantage.
However, a recent change to the ABA standards indicates that even such a tactical motive is no
longer necessary. The state's failure to investigate evidence in Mr. Yust's case warrants dismissal
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
or exclusion of evidence.
Under the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution
Function, “[a] prosecutor should not avoid pursuit of information or evidence because the
th
prosecutor believes it will damage the prosecution's case or aid the accused.” § 3-5.4(g) (4 ed.
2018). The fourth edition of the standards eliminated an “intentionality” requirement in avoiding
the pursuit of evidence. Compare id. with Standards of Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function
§ 3-3.11 (3d ed. 1993) (“A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence….”)
(emphasis added). The commentary to these standards makes clear that it is the prosecutor’s
duty to acquire all relevant evidence. Wold v. State , 204 N.W.2d 482, 486 (Wis. 1973) (citing
American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the
Kenneth Rosenthal points out that there are few reported decisions in which the
71 Temp. L. Rev. 887, 953 n.319 (1998). However, the cases that exist make clear that when a
tactical choice is made to not pursue evidence, the state has breached that duty. Moreover, if the
state explicitly assumes a duty to disclose all evidence of a certain type and fails to acquire
knowledge of all of that type of evidence, then it has breached its duty. However, there are only
grounds for a reversal of a conviction, or in this case dismissal, if the harm from the state’s
non-pursuit is great enough to question whether the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
In this instance, case law dictates that determining the state has breached its duty to
pursue relevant information requires showing either that the state made a tactical choice not to
pursue the relevant evidence, or that it had explicitly assumed a duty to do acquire the evidenced
that it failed to acquire. However, those cases relied on old ABA standards that prohibited the
state from intentionally avoiding pursuing evidence. This intentionality requirement no longer
exists as of 2018, therefore, a violation of these standards occurs simply by the state negligently
failing to pursue evidence. That duty has been breached in this case given that multiple sources
of investigation that were never pursued could have been dispositive of Mr.Yust's guilt or
In State v. Hammond , 604 A.2d 793 (Conn. 1992), defendant Hammond was charged
with sexual assault. Right after the assault took place, a physician used cotton swabs to take two
samples from the victim’s vagina. Id. at 276. One of the swabs immediately tested positive for
semen. Id. The other swab was taken to a state toxicologist, and again tested positive for
semen. Id. at 277. The state toxicologist also examined the stains on the victim’s jeans and
underwear and found that they tested positive for semen, but that the semen could not have come
from someone with Hammond’s blood type. Id. at 278. A state police forensic analyst obtained
identical results. Id. at 278. A DNA analysis was then done on the stains and, though the
semen stains on the victim’s jeans “had degraded to the point at which no reliable DNA
comparisons could be made, [the analyst] concluded that … the defendant … could [not] have
contributed to any part of the semen stain on the victim’s underwear.” Id. The state argued that
the samples from the clothing were likely contaminated, and that DNA analysis should have been
taken from the vaginal swabs since vaginal swabs are “always preferable for testing purposes to a
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
sample extracted from a stain.” Id. at 291. The defendant was convicted of sexual assault. Id.
at 266. However, though the state toxicologist informed the defense counsel that he believed the
swabs were no longer testable for DNA, the defense counsel learned from other sources after the
trial that DNA testing of the swabs was still possible. Id. The defense counsel then “moved for
posttrial discovery requesting that the testing be done” on the swabs. Id. The trial court denied
the motion. Id. The appellate court held that the defendant was entitled to the DNA testing on
the swabs. Id. at 295. While the state argued that the defendant made a “tactical choice not to
have the samples tested prior to the verdict,” the court reasoned:
This argument presupposes that it reasonably appeared during the trial that the samples
were testable, and raises the inference that the state also made a tactical choice not to
have the samples tested prior to the verdict. Such a tactical choice would plainly have
been a breach of the prosecutor's ethical duty to pursue relevant evidence even if it may
be exculpatory.
Id. at 291-92 (citation omitted). See also United States v. Kelly , 543 F. Supp. 1303, 1312 (D.
Mass. 1982) (finding that a prosecutor’s failure to inquire further about a suspicion that his
witness’s testimony was false and instead avoiding the topic altogether violated his ethical duty
to pursue relevant evidence). In the alternative, “if both attorneys were entitled to believe the
[state toxicologist’s] statement [that the swabs were no longer testable for DNA], and in fact the
statement was false, then the state ha[d] breached its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.” Id.
at 293.
In Wold v. State , defendant Wold was charged with taking indecent liberties with a
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
five-year-old girl. 204 N.W.2d 482. Prior to trial, the state “volunteered to provide [to the
defense] all crime laboratory reports.” Id. at 486. At trial, “an analyst with the state crime
laboratory testified she had found a seminal stain on Wold’s underwear,” which was not
presented in the crime laboratory reports. Id. The defense counsel—being uninformed about
the stain—moved to strike her testimony, but the motion was denied. Id. The state was
similarly uninformed about the seminal stain until the analyst’s testimony at trial, as it only
“relied on the reports given the defendant.” Wold was subsequently convicted. Id. The
appellate court held that the evidence of the seminal stain should not have been admitted, but
also held that this does not require a reversal. Id. at 488. The court reasoned that “the test of
whether evidence should be disclosed is not whether in fact the prosecutor knows of its existence
but, rather, whether by the exercise of due diligence he should have discovered it.” Id. at 487.
Here, by virtue of the agreement to disclose all crime laboratory reports, it was the state’s duty
“to seek to know of the existence of such reports which [it] should disclose to the defense….”
Id. However, the harm done by admitting the evidence was not of a degree that would require
automatic reversal. Id. at 491. The other evidence against Wold—including the five-year-old
victim’s vivid description of the event, the victim’s prompt disclosure of the event to her mom,
the blood stains on her clothes, and a medical examination—was substantial enough for a juror to
convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, excluding the testimony of the seminal stain. Id.
Unlike Wold , the harm to Mr. Yust in not pursuing multiple sources of evidence shows
that the unpursued evidence—if it would have been favorable to Mr. Yust—would have
overwhelmed the evidence against him. Whereas in Wold the unpursued evidence regarded only
an additional seminal stain in the face of overwhelming medical and witness testimony, here the
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
unpursued evidence includes several more items of evidence, many of which could have actually
In addition to failure to investigate, this case has been tainted by becoming suspect driven and
conducted by an officer acting outside of his jurisdiction. Officer Joshua Meierer took it upon
himself to interview witnesses using improper techniques, suggesting Mr. Yust's guilt, telling
them false information regarding Mr. Yust and maintaining inappropriate contact with witnesses.
It became apparent that Officer Meierer was working closely with members of Ms. Kopetsky's
family and a group of supporters. This group was called the "Kopetsky Sleuths". One of the
members of this group, Russ Ptacek, a media personality, published articles using unredacted
Officer Meierer was not assigned by the KCPD or the Belton Police Department to
pertaining to Yust. He expressed to the interviewees that he knew Yust was guilty of killing
Kopetsky and that he would prove it, and that Yust was secretly a brilliant serial killer. Meierer
also drove slowly past Yust’s residence on multiple occasions. Meierer even changed his
One particularly clear cut example is that several days after Kopetsky went missing, Yust
was asked to come to the police station to answer some questions. Yust borrowed clothes from
his friend Ben Bennett to go down to the police station so as to dress presentably for the
interview. Meierer reported this instance as though Yust was actually ridding himself of the
evidence of his clothes from the night of the alleged murder although it was actually several days
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
later.
bias, complete lack of supervision and high-profile media attention. Evidence tainted by Officer
Meierer's investigation needs to be excluded. The exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule
“adopted to effectuate the Fourth Amendment right of all citizens ‘to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures….’ ” United States v.
Calandra , 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974). It is “of constitutional origin,” Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S.
643, 649 (1961), and is “designed to deter police misconduct.” United States v. Leon , 468 U.S.
897, 916 (1984). The rule prohibits the introduction illegally obtained evidence in a criminal
trial “where its deterrence benefits outweighs its substantial social costs.” Hudson v. Michigan ,
Furthermore, according to the Tenth Circuit, “an arrest made outside of the arresting
officer's jurisdiction violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution….” Ross v. Neff , 905
F.2d 1349, 1353–54 (10th Cir. 1990). It would therefore seem to follow that the exclusionary
rule applies to evidence gathered from an officer’s extra-jurisdictional investigation, like the one
We are mindful, however, both of language from the United States Supreme Court
explaining that the exclusionary rule is not meant to “proscribe the introduction of illegally
seized evidence in all proceedings,” Leon , 468 U.S. at 906, as well as the weight of authority
holding that an officer’s extra-jurisdictional investigation is not subject to the exclusionary rule,
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
see, e.g. , Chavez v. State , 9 S.W.3d 817, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (holding that evidence
gathered by an officer outside of his jurisdiction should not be suppressed as it was not obtained
in violation of the suspect’s rights); but see Commonwealth v. Merchant , 560 A.2d 795, 799
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (holding that evidence seized at an officer’s investigatory stop outside of
his jurisdiction, in violation of state statute, should be suppressed because he was not brought
Because of the strong indicators that Officer Meierer’s investigation was not only
objectively illegal (in that he was performing police work outside of his jurisdiction), but also so
corrupted with bias and investigative failures that any evidence gathered from that investigation
is inherently unreliable, the evidence he gathered while outside of his jurisdiction should be
suppressed. Officer Meierer's investigation was riddled with confirmation bias and tunnel vision,
in that he tailored his investigation towards gathering evidence against Mr. Yust as opposed to
seeking the truth generally, and he chose not to pursue any evidence against other suspects.
wrongful convictions—-has been burgeoning in recent years. This research suggests that the
most common type of police investigation errors are mistakes in decision-making. D. Kim
Rossmo, Case Rethinking: A Protocol for Reviewing Criminal Investigations , Police Prac. &
Res. 2 (2014) [hereinafter Rossmo, Case Rethinking ] (citing Barrie Irving & Colin Dunninghan,
Human Factors in the Quality Control of CID Investigations , Royal Commission on Crim. Just.
Res. (1994)). Among these decision-making errors include premature judgment (coming to an
intuitive judgment before all relevant evidence is gathered), Rossmo, Case Rethinking at 3;
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
tunnel vision (“becoming so focused upon an individual or incident that no other person or
incident registers in the officer’s thoughts”), id. at 5 (citing Peter de C. Cory, The Inquiry
to Compensation 37 (2001)); and confirmation bias (one’s inclination to view and pursue
evidence in a way that affirms her hypothesis and rejects opposing hypotheses), Rossmo, Case
In 2019, Dr. D. Kim Rossmo, Professor and University Chair in Criminology, School of
Criminal Justice, Texas State University. and Dr. Joycelyn M. Pollock, University Distinguished
wrongful convictions and other criminal investigative failures in order to identify the major
causal factors, their characteristics and interrelationships, and the systemic nature of the overall
failure.” D. Kim Rossmo & Joycelyn M. Pollock, Confirmation Bias and Other Systemic Causes
of Wrongful Convictions: A Sentinel Events Perspective , 11 Ne. U. L. Rev. 790, 792 (2019)
murder cases. Id. at 802. The study identified multiple causes behind these failures, noting that
there is never “a single root cause” but rather “a number of intersecting causal factors.” Id. at
808. The numerous causes were mapped and linked to one another based on their
prematurely rush to judgment, creating a causal link between “high-profile case” (cause) and
flawed judgment.” Id. at 799. The second category was classified “organizational problems,”
i.e. , problems in the “structure, procedures, policies, training or resources of the police agency
or prosecutor’s office.” Id. The third category was classified “situational features,” i.e. ,
“environmental features or characteristics of the crime, external to the control of the police or
government.” Id.
The study found that “[p]ersonal factors were the most frequent cause of wrongful
convictions,” comprising 61% of all causes. Id. at 809. The authors note that “[p]ublic fear,
intense media interest, … personal ego, or a strong desire to arrest a dangerous offender can all
lead to premature judgment.” Id. at 812. Specific to this study, “premature judgment often led
to tunnel vision and confirmation bias,” leading to “poor thinking, logic failures, misjudgment of
witness reliability, and flawed evidence assessments.” Id. at 809–10. In fact, “[c]onfirmation
bias was the most connected causal factor by a significant margin.” Id. at 805. Scholars have
recognized the negative effect confirmation bias can have on one’s pursuit and analysis of
evidence. See id . at 813 (“An officer may be so convinced of an eyewitness’s identification that
he ignores other case facts that point away from the suspect's guilt.”) (quoting Jon B. Gould et
(2013)); Rossmo, Case Rethinking at 5–6 (“Confirmation bias can cause a detective to focus on
evidence confirming the investigative theory, while ignoring or refusing to look for contradicting
evidence.”). The study fell in line with these characterizations, finding a causal connection
between confirmation bias and flawed evidence assessments. Rossmo, Confirmation Bias at 810.
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
The authors of the study even describe some effects of confirmation bias as follows:
manifestations of confirmation bias include the failure to search for evidence that might
prove a suspect’s alibi, not utilizing such evidence if found, and refusing to consider
alternative hypotheses.
Id. at 814.
It is, to say the very least, troubling to consider Officer Meierer’s activities in light of the
empirically suggested danger that stems from confirmation bias. The evidence does not indicate
that Meierer’s goal in going beyond his jurisdictional limits was to gather whatever evidence he
could to seek the truth. Rather, it indicates that he went beyond his jurisdictional limits to gather
any evidence he could against Yust . It is no secret that Kopetsky’s parents believed Yust killed
their daughter, nor is it a secret that Kopetsky’s aunt was a detective for the Kansas City Police
Department, nor is it a secret that the Kopetsky family expressly solicited the help of Meierer to
investigate Yust. The interviews Meierer conducted in his investigation were entirely centered
on discovering more information specifically about Yust. What’s more, he expressed in his
interviews sentiments that he knew Yust was guilty and would prove it; that Yust was actually a
brilliant serial killer. See generally Saul M. Kassin, Christine C. Goldstein, & Kenneth Savitsky,
& Human Behavior 187 (2003) (explaining an investigator’s tendency to ask more
guilt-presumptive questions when he is under the impression that a suspect is guilty). Meierer
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
scoped out Yust’s residence several times. He portrayed Yust’s borrowing clothes from a friend
in order to dress presentably in a discussion with the police days after Kopetsky went missing as
an attempt to ditch the clothes he was wearing the night of the alleged crime. He even changed
No other suspect in this case received a fraction of the attention (or computer login
homage) that Yust has received from Meierer, notwithstanding the evidence against Billy Bayes
and Keith York. In light of Meierer’s zealous pursuit of evidence against Yust and his seemingly
investigation was not fueled in significant part by a foregone conclusion that Yust was guilty
until proven innocent. It is therefore reasonable to strongly suspect that Meierer’s judgements of
witness reliability and his evidence assessments were too overcome by confirmation bias to be
reliable.
The study found that “[t]he most frequent organizational problem was lack of proper
supervision and management.” Id. at 810. This, in turn, enabled both confirmation bias and
incompetent investigation. Id. Police management even “ignored (and perhaps unofficially
encouraged) misfeasance and noble cause corruption” in certain cases. Id. By operating
completely outside of his jurisdiction and by circumventing the authority of the Belton Police
accountability. Detective from the Kansas City Police Department homicide unit testified at
deposition that Officer Meierer was specifically told to stop all investigation on this case.
Additionally, he met with the Belton Police Department and was also told by them not to
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
continue with his rogue investigation.
Officer Meierer’s investigation, in line with the study’s most frequent organizational
problem, was entirely lacking in proper supervision. The investigation was, again, performed
mostly off-duty and outside of his jurisdiction. The police chief in Belton even admitted that he
worried about Meierer’s independent investigation compromising the integrity of the Belton
Police Department's investigation. Meierer acted in a manner that both circumvented the
authority of the Belton police department and that rendered him unaccountable to his own police
department. It is no wonder that his investigative methods reeked of confirmation bias; after all,
“A high-profile crime followed by excessive media attention was the most common
situational factor found in [the] study.” Id. Yet again, Officer Meierer’s investigation finds
itself falling in line with the group’s predominant causal factor. A simple Google News search
for the alleged murders yields over a hundred articles from local news sources, as well as from
national sources like the Associated Press, ABC News, the Daily Beast, CNN, the Washington
Post, New York Daily News, Fox News, CBS News, Yahoo News, and People.
The causal factors present in Officer Meierer’s investigation were also shown to be the
study’s most significant causal factors in their respective groups, culminating in evidence that
[p]articular combinations of factors tended to cluster together in the same case. For
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
example, a common causal pattern consisted of a high-profile crime (such as a horrible
evidence failure.
Id. at 805. Upon recognizing the interconnectedness of these causal factors, one can begin to
construct the process that was likely behind Officer Meierer’s illegal conduct. This case involves
the alleged murder of two young women, one of them still a teenager. The entire Benton
community, led by Kopetsky’s grief-stricken parents, rallied to express righteous cries for justice.
The tragic deaths and outcries from the community spawned overwhelming local and national
media attention. In addition, Kopetsky’s parents elicited the help of Officer Meierer through
their connections with the KCPD to gather evidence against their late daughter’s boyfriend—the
lead singer of a death metal band who had a turbulent relationship with Kopetsky. Furthermore,
driving police from an evidence-based to a suspect-based investigation before they are ready.”
Id. at 812 (citing Barbara O’Brien, Prime Suspect: An Examination of Factors that Aggravate
and Counteract Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations , 15 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 315,
316, 328, 331 (2009); D. Kim Rossmo, Criminal Investigative Failures 58, 61 (2009)). The
high-profile nature of the case, the requests from Kopetsky’s family, and the utter lack of
This reasoning in general, does not question the moral character or his skill as an officer.
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
Rather, “[c]ognitive biases operate at a below-conscious level; they are the product of
unintentional strategies, not deliberate decisions.” Id. at 811 (citing Judgment Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases xii (Daniel Khaneman et al. eds., 1982). Indeed, even the best
But we must reiterate that there is not just a vague suspicion that Officer Meierer
conducted his investigation in an unreliable manner. Rather, Officer Meierer’s investigation was
fueled by each causal group’s most dominant factor in criminal investigative failures. It is
documented in police reports and confirmed in deposition testimony that there were discussions
of convening a grand jury to investigate Officer Meierer and other individuals who were involved
in this alternate investigation. To allow the evidence he gathered against Mr. Yust—evidence he
gathered by pursuing Yust specifically outside of his jurisdiction and outside of his official
duties—especially after he failed to pursue any potentially incriminating evidence against other
suspects (even a suspect who has confessed to murdering Kopetsky) would be to incentivise
these kinds of bias-infused, extra-jurisdictional investigations in the future. This sort of activity
Finally, the prosecution in this case should be barred from arguing that Mr. Yust's alibi in
2007 is inaccurate or that Al Yust was being untruthful to protect Kylr Yust. As outlined above,
the state had full access to multiple avenues of investigation that would have corroborated Al and
Kylr Yust's testimony. Equally troubling is that a recent disclosure of emails show that while Mr.
Yust was incarcerated in federal prison, Officer Meierer was making contact with Mr. Yust's
father, Ken Yust, and his girlfriend Karen, and trying to convince them that Al Yust was lying to
Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
police to provide Kylr with an alibi. So instead of actually investigating neutral facts which at
that time were readily available and would prove Mr. Yust's whereabouts on May 4, 2007,
Officer Meirer was deliberately trying to tamper with witnesses to undercut Mr. Yust's defense.
If they wished to prove that Kylr Yust did not have an alibi they could have checked with other
witnesses, the medical facility or made even a rudimentary attempt at obtaining the location data
from his phone. They did none of these things. And to reiterate they had over a decade to do so
and all of this information was available from witnesses and facilities located within one half
hour's drive from Belton, Missouri. Allowing them to benefit by their own complete, intentional
failure to investigate is unconscionable. Doing so would violate Mr. Yust's rights to Due Process
of Law, the right to Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Right to Present a Defense as
Finally, despite what the state may argue, the fact that Mr. Yust made "statements" in this
case is in no way dispositive of his guilt nor does it excuse wrongdoing, misconduct or
negligence by law enforcement. The Innocence Project has documented that 29% of people
Additionally the statements made in this case are vague, unsupported by physical evidence,
obtained by promises of sex and via use of a ouija board. There is no physical evidence of any
For the foregoing reasons, Kylr Yust respectfully requests that this Court dismiss this case.
_______________________________
Sharon Turlington, Mo Bar No. 39366
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Sharon Turlington, Mo Bar No. 39366
_______________________________
Sharon Turlington, Mo Bar No. 39366
Attorneys for Defendant
1010 Market Street
Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone 314-340-7662
Fax 314-340-7666
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of February, 2021, an electronic copy of the
foregoing was sent through the Missouri e-Filing system to counsel of record.
_______________________________
Sharon Turlington