Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CASS COUNTY

STATE OF MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Cause No. 17CA-CR00957-01

Plaintiff )
) Division No.
v. )
)
KYLR YUST, )
Defendant )
)

MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO SUSPECT DRIVEN INVESTIGATION AND FAILURE TO

INVESTIGATE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

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

Motion the Defense states the following:

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

to band practice for the group the Seraphim.

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

at 1:02 pm she sent a text message to an unidentified number.

 Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
Location data from her phone shows that this text "pinged" on a tower located near the

intersection of 155 and Highway 71. Due to this information, police conducted extensive

searches of this area.

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

surveillance video for an extended amount of time.

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

Bayes. However, Crystal Bayes has never been interviewed.

Additionally, law enforcement engaged in selective documenting of the investigation,

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

vital to the investigation. There is no reason that it was not obtained.

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

either at home or at work during the day of September 9, 2016.

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

these items left and that's all.

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

at Carondelet Manor or staff at the gas station

2. Failure to locate records from Carondelet Manor including possible security tapes, sign in

registers and medical records

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

5. Failure to investigate Joshua Castle

6. Failure to document interview and investigation of Billy Bayes

7. Failure to interview Crystal Bayes

8. Failure to obtain text messages between Katelynn Farris and Kylr Yust

9. Losing a taped statement of Candice Mathews which appears to be substantially different

from her other statements

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

Prosecution Function and the Defense Function, Approved Draft, p. 102).

Kenneth Rosenthal points out that there are few reported decisions in which the

aforementioned duty to pursue relevant evidence is cited. Kenneth Rosenthal, Prosecutorial

Misconduct, Convictions, and Double Jeopardy: Case Studies in an Emerging Jurisprudence ,

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

innocence under either standard.

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

exonerated Mr. Yust if pursued.

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

police reports primarily generated by Officer Meierer.

Officer Meierer was not assigned by the KCPD or the Belton Police Department to

conduct this investigation. He interviewed several people, specifically about information

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

computer login to “Kylr Yust. or "Find Kara."

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.

Officer Meierer's extra-jurisdictional investigation bore the most significant, empirically

tested indicators of a failed criminal investigation because of strong indicators of confirmation

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 ,

547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006).

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

performed by Officer Meierer.

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

outside of his jurisdiction in response to specific criminal behavior).

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.

Research regarding criminal investigative failures—particularly those failures that lead to

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

Regarding Thomas Sophonow: The Investigation, Prosecution, and Consideration of Entitlement

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

Rethinking at 5 (citing Derek J. Koehler, Explanation, Imagination, and Confidence in

Judgment , 110 Psychol. Bull. 499 (1991)).

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

Professor Emeritus, School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University “deconstructed 50

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)

[hereinafter Rossmo, Confirmation Bias ]. 45 of these criminal investigative failures centered on

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

cause-and-effect relationship; e.g. , a high-profile case would cause an investigator to

prematurely rush to judgment, creating a causal link between “high-profile case” (cause) and

“rush to judgment” (effect). Id. at 805.

 Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
The causes were grouped into three categories. The first category was classified

“personal issues,” i.e. , “individual-level problems, often involving poor decision-making or

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

al., Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice 15

(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:

Confirmation bias can cause a detective to interpret information in a biased manner—

evidence that supports the investigative theory is skeptically scrutinized. Other

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,

Behavioral Confirmation in the Interrogation Room: On the Dangers of Presuming Guilt , 27 L.

& 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

his computer login password to “Kylr Yust.”

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

deliberate non-pursuit of any other evidence, it is difficult to conclude that Meierer’s

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

Department, Officer Meierer's investigation was entirely without police supervision or

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,

according to the study, his lack of supervision enabled that behavior.

“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

was not only obtained illegally but that is likely unreliable.

The study notes 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

murder) that led to a rush to judgment (and a premature shift to a suspect-based

investigation), resulting in tunnel vision and confirmation bias—ultimately producing an

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,

“[s]hocking crimes—attacks on children or multiple murders—generate higher pressures and risk

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

supervision of Officer Meierer “resulted in tunnel vision and confirmation bias—ultimately

producing an evidence failure” as illustrated in part A . Rossmo, Confirmation Bias at 805.

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

officers are susceptible to confirmation bias and its consequences.

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

is precisely what the exclusionary rule was designed to deter.

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

guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Missouri.

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

exonerated by DNA evidence made inculpatory statements. See innocenceproject.org.

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

kind supporting Mr. Yust's guilt in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, Kylr Yust respectfully requests that this Court dismiss this case.

/s/ Sharon Turlington

 Electronically Filed - Cass - February 23, 2021 - 10:29 PM
_______________________________
Sharon Turlington, Mo Bar No. 39366

_______________________________
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