THE THIRTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL IOWA MIDDLE SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT 2021 STATE OF IOWA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE THIRTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL
IOWA MIDDLE SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT
2021
STATE OF IOWA
Vs.
DANA BAYLESS
A program of
The Iowa State Bar Association
Center for Law & Civic Education
In cooperation with the
Young Lawyer’s Division
Of The Iowa State Bar Association
With generous financial support from
The Iowa State Bar Foundation
-1-IOWA MIDDLE SCHOOL
MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT
2021
STATE OF IOWA
Vs.
DANA BAYLESS
Adapted From Competition Materials
State of Indiana v. Izzy Freeman
Written by Susan Roberts
for the 2007 Indiana Mock Trial Competition
Many Thanks to Ms. Roberts and the Indiana Mock Trial Program
for the use of their original problem.
Case Adapted and Revised for the Iowa Middle School Competition By:
The Iowa State Bar Association
Center for Law & Civic Education
625 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
-2-Case Note:
This case, as all others, takes place in the MOCK world of Mock
Trial. Fortunately, MOCK Iowa in Mock Trial World has not
suffered from COVID-19 and consequent widespread business and
legal community shut-downs. Therefore, unlike the real world,
please pretend that the pandemic never happened. Dates, places
and other references in this case exist in the purely MOCK
version of life. This problem is set in 2020 – not real 2020,
which we would all love to forget, but MOCK 2020 – where life is
beautiful all the time! (Except for the legal issues depicted
herein!)
Case Background:
The defendant, Dana Bayless, has been charged with the murder of
her/his business partner, Cora Reichel. Reichel apparently had a
gambling problem and had been unlucky for some period of time.
Thinking that her luck would change, she borrowed money
frequently from a dubious source, Dublin “Db” Beard. However,
Reichel’s luck didn’t change and under pressure for payment from
Db, Cora began stealing money from the business. However, with
skyrocketing interest and continued gambling losses, Reichel’s
debt was still over $200,000, even after Cora drained the
business dry. In the meantime, Bayless hired an accountant to
determine why the business was losing money. When Dana learned
that Cora had been stealing from the business and driven it into
bankruptcy, Dana allegedly became enraged and threatened to kill
Cora. A few days later Reichel was found dead and through an
insurance policy, Dana would become a half million dollars
richer. But we all know that there’s much more to it than that!
Additional Case Notes:
You’ll have to use your imagination to see Exhibit 3 written out
in ACTUAL bacon – not photos as depicted. (Bacon is expensive!)
Name Pronunciation: Nguyen = New-win
Reichel = Rye-shell
Rippert = Rep-pair
-3-IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
POLK COUNTY, IOWA
CASE NO. 21-CR-38-21
STATE OF IOWA PLAINTIFF
VS. PRE-TRIAL ORDER
DANA BAYLESS DEFENDANT
**********
On this the 1st day of September 2021, the above-captioned matter came before the undersigned
judge for pretrial conference. The parties, appearing through their counsel, indicated their agreement to
the terms of this Order. The terms of this Order shall not be altered, except by this Court upon a showing
of good cause.
I. Statement of Case
The State of Iowa charged the Defendant, Dana Bayless, with Murder.
II. Pretrial Rulings
Because the parties have stipulated to the cause of death of the victim, the judge has sustained the
Defendant's objection to showing photos of the victim's body and injuries on the grounds that those
photos would be unnecessarily cumulative of the testimony of Investigative Officer Andres Rippert and
that, as a result of their gruesome nature, those photos would be substantially more prejudicial than
probative.
III. Stipulations of the Parties
The parties have entered into the following stipulations, which shall not be contradicted or
challenged:
1. The signatures on the witness statements are authentic and signed under oath by each
witness.
2. The jury charges are accurate in all respects. No objections to the jury charges may be
raised.
3. The indictment is valid. The Defendant may not challenge the indictment as deficient.
4. All exhibits included in the case are authentic and accurate in all respects, No objections to
the authenticity of the exhibits will be entertained. Due to limitations of Mock Trial, all the
physical evidence is accurately portrayed thought the exhibits provided.
-4-5. The autopsy concluded that Cora Reichel died as a result of hypothermia. Hypothermia
causes the body to be pale and waxy, not cyanotic, because the blood will have been
withdrawn from the skin by the body’s defensive mechanisms to avoid loss of heat.
6. Time of death could not be determined from typical physical examination of the body, i.e.
body temperature, because the body was frozen.
7. The autopsy results dated cigarette burns found on the victim to have occurred two weeks
prior to death, and strangulation of neck, non-life-threatening, to have occurred less than one
week prior to death.
8. Fingerprint analysis shows that Bayless’s fingerprints are on the padlock to the cooler, the
cooler door, and kitchen knife. Beard’s fingerprints were not detected on any restaurant
surface.
9. Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7 were made at or about the time of events by a person with knowledge
of the events and are kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity, and it is the
regular practice to make such records. Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not need to be introduced
through the custodian of records.
10. Exhibit 3 is the original photograph taken by Senior Investigator Rippert at the scene of the
crime and accurately depicts the surroundings at the time of the investigation.
11. Exhibit 10 is a true and accurate copy of the original note of Cora Reichel provided by
Defendant Bayless shortly after s/he was charged with the murder of Cora Reichel. The
handwriting contained in Exhibit 10 has been confirmed to be that of Cora Reichel, per
expert handwriting analysis. The original note was to be analyzed using ink-dating
techniques. Prior to undergoing the ink-dating analysis, a copy of the original note was
made. The original note disappeared from the evidence room prior to analysis. Therefore,
the dating of the handwriting on the note cannot be determined. Exhibit 10 is admissible,
without objection.
12. All searches of property and persons were done with lawful authority and within the bounds
of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of any search of any property or person may
not be challenged or called into question during the trial of the case. The chain of custody of
evidence collected during the investigation is not in dispute.
13. The Defendant, Dana Bayless, was properly advised of Miranda warnings upon arrest.
Miranda warnings were not legally required prior to any other interview of Dana Bayless or
-5-any other witness. The validity of any interview based on Miranda may not be challenged or
called into question during the trial of the case.
14. Senior Investigator Andres Rippert, the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation, and the Polk
County Sheriff’s officers interviewed all likely witnesses. Only those with information
relevant and valuable to the investigation are specifically identified in Rippert’s report and
statement. No other witness interviewed provided any relevant or valuable information.
15. The testimony of the officers, the coroner and any other member of the Polk County Sheriff
Department and the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation is in concurrence with and
cumulative of that of Senior Investigator Andres Rippert and is, therefore, unnecessary. The
failure of a party to call a witness other than those listed in the Case Materials may not be
raised or challenged.
16. In accord with Iowa Mock Trial rules and customs, student witnesses may portray their
characters in any manner consistent with the case materials. However, the Court WILL
NOT recognize any request to designate witnesses in this problem as “hostile.” As such,
questioning of witnesses on direct and cross examination must proceed in the usual
acceptable format. (i.e. open-ended questions on direct and closed-ended questions on
cross).
IV. Witnesses Scheduled to Appear
The following witnesses are scheduled to appear in the above captioned matter:
For the Plaintiff (State of Iowa)
Andres Rippert, Senior Investigator, Iowa Department of Public Safety
Keller Puck, Forensic Accountant
Dublin Beard, Local Entrepreneur
For the Defense
Dana Bayless, Defendant, Chef and Co-Owner of Remy Restaurant
Winn Nguyen, Chef, Television Personality and Executive Producer
Silverton Trotter, Professor, Criminologist, and Private Investigator
V. Exhibits Available
The following exhibits are available for use by parties during the presentation of this trial.
Exhibits have been pre-marked and should be referred to by their appropriate exhibit number:
-6-1. Investigative Report
2. Supplemental Investigative Report
3. Photograph of Message in Restaurant Freezer
4. Curriculum Vitae of Keller Puck, CPA, CFE
5. Accounting Sample from Remy Restaurant
6. Accounting Example from Remy Restaurant
7. Accounting Example from Remy Restaurant
8. Buy-Sell Agreement
9. Receipt for Padlock purchase
10. Menu Suggestion from Cora Reichel
11. Curriculum Vitae of Silverton Trotter, Ph.D.
IT IS SO ORDERED, on this 1st day of September, 2021.
/s/ Christina Thompson
The Honorable Presiding Judge
-7-IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CRIMINAL LAW NO. _21-CR-38-21_
)
v. )
)
DANA BAYLESS , ) TRIAL INFORMATION
)
Defendant )
COMES NOW the Polk County Attorney’s Office and, in the name and by the authority of the State of
Iowa, accuses the Defendant of the crime of the following:
COUNT I: Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Iowa Code Section 707.2, based upon the
allegations that the Defendant in this County, Iowa, on or about the 26th day of September 2020, did:
Cause the death of Cora Reichel, a human being, by locking her in an industrial freezer, intending or
knowing that s/he would cause the death of Cora Reichel, and acting with premeditation.
A TRUE INFORMATION: Polk County Attorney’s Office
By: Amelia Mapes
(Signature)
-8-APPROVAL AND ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT
This information and the Minutes of Evidence accompanying it have been examined by me and
found to contain sufficient evidence, if unexplained, to warrant a conviction by trial jury. The witnesses
are listed in the Minutes of Evidence. The filing of this information is approved by me on the 1st day of
September, 2021.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that arraignment in this matter be scheduled. There is no preliminary
hearing after filing this information.
Christina Thompson
JUDGE
-9-IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CRIMINAL LAW NO. _21-CR-38-21___
)
v. )
)
DANA BAYLESS , ) DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN NOTICE OF
) NOT GUILTY PLEA
Defendant )
COMES NOW, the Defendant and for his/her Written Notice of Not Guilty Plea, and states as
follows:
After having been fully advised of my right to plead guilty, not guilty, former conviction, and
former acquittal, I hereby enter a plea of Not Guilty to the charge of Murder in the First Degree, in
violation of Iowa Code Section 707.2.
Dana Bayless
DEFENDANT
- 10 -IOWA CODE
CHAPTER 702 DEFINITIONS
702.11 Forcible felony.
1. A “forcible felony” is any felonious child endangerment, assault, murder, sexual abuse,
kidnapping, robbery, human trafficking, arson in the first degree, or burglary in the first degree.
CHAPTER 707 HOMICIDE AND RELATED CRIMES
707.1 MURDER DEFINED.
A person who kills another person with malice aforethought either express or implied
commits murder.
707.2 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
A person commits murder in the first degree when the person commits murder under any of
the following circumstances:
1. The person willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation kills another person.
2. The person kills another person while participating in a forcible felony.
3. The person kills another person while escaping or attempting to escape from lawful
custody.
4. The person intentionally kills a peace officer, correctional officer, public employee, or
hostage while the person is imprisoned in a correctional institution under the jurisdiction of the
Iowa department of corrections, or in a city or county jail.
5. The person kills a child while committing child endangerment under section 726.6,
subsection 1, paragraph "b", or while committing assault under section 708.1 upon the child, and
the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to life.
6. The person kills another person while participating in an act of terrorism as defined in
section 708A.1.
Murder in the first degree is a class "A" felony.
- 11 -JURY INSTRUCTIONS
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
It is your duty as a juror to decide this case by applying these jury instructions to the facts as you
determine them. You must follow these jury instructions. They are the rules you should use to
decide this case.
It is your duty to determine what the facts are in the case by determining what actually happened.
Determine the facts only from the evidence produced in court. When I say “evidence”, I mean
the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits introduced in court. You should not guess about any
fact. You must not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice. You must not be concerned with any
opinion that you feel I have about the facts. You, as jurors, are the sole judges of what happened.
You must consider all these instructions. Do not pick out one instruction, or part of one, and
ignore others. As you determine the facts, however, you may find that some instructions no
longer apply. You must then consider the instructions that do apply, together with the facts as
you have determined them.
In their opening statements and closing arguments, the lawyers have talked to you about the law
and the evidence. What the lawyers said is not evidence, but it may help you to understand the
law and the evidence.
The lawyers are permitted to stipulate that certain facts exist. This means that both sides agree
those facts do exist and are part of the evidence. If a fact is stipulated, then you can assume that
fact to be true and do not consider any evidence that contradicts that fact.
You are to determine what the facts in this case are from the evidence produced in court. If the
court sustained an objection to a lawyer’s question, you must disregard it and any answer given.
Any testimony stricken from the court record must not be considered.
The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil
cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true, or that its truth is
highly probable. In criminal cases such as this, the State’s proof must be more powerful than
that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s
guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in
criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. If, based on your
consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime
charged, you must find the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real
possibility that the defendant is not guilty, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt
and find the defendant not guilty.
You must decide whether or not the State has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The law does not require a defendant to prove innocence. You must start with the
- 12 -presumption that the defendant is innocent. The State must then prove the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the State must prove each element of the charges
beyond a reasonable doubt. If you conclude that the State has not met its burden of proof beyond
a reasonable doubt with respect to a particular charge, then you must find the defendant not
guilty of that charge.
You must decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty by determining what the facts in
the case are and applying these jury instructions. You must not consider the possible punishment
when deciding on guilt; punishment is left to the judge.
If you find that the plaintiff, the State of Iowa, has lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve evidence
whose contents or quality are important to the issues in this case, then you should weigh the
explanation, if any, given for the loss or unavailability of the evidence. If you find that any such
explanation is inadequate then you may infer that the evidence is against the State’s interest,
which may create a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt.
The State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with its own evidence. You must not
conclude that the defendant is likely to be guilty because the defendant did not testify. The
defendant is not required to testify. The decision on whether or not to testify is left to the
defendant acting with the advice of an attorney. You must not let this choice affect your
deliberations in any way.
The defendant is not required to produce evidence of any kind. The decision on whether to
produce any evidence is left to the defendant acting with the advice of an attorney. The
defendant’s failure to produce any evidence is not evidence of guilt.
Before you may convict the defendant of the charged crimes, you must find that the State proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a voluntary act. A voluntary act means
a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination. You must
consider all the evidence in deciding whether the defendant committed the act voluntarily.
In determining the evidence, you must decide whether to believe the witnesses and their
testimony. As you do this, you should consider the testimony in light of all the other evidence in
the case. This means you may consider such things as the witnesses’ ability and opportunity to
observe, their manner and memory while testifying, any motive or prejudice they might have,
and any inconsistent statements they may have made.
The State has charged the defendant with certain crimes. A charge is not evidence against the
defendant. You must not think that the defendant is guilty just because of a charge. The
defendant has pled “not guilty”. This plea of “not guilty” means that the State must prove each
element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is the testimony of a witness who saw,
heard, or otherwise observed an event. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a fact or facts
from which you may find another fact. The law makes no distinction between direct and
- 13 -circumstantial evidence. It is for you to determine the importance to be given to the evidence,
regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial.
A witness may give an opinion on a subject upon which the witness has become an expert
because of education, study, or experience. You should consider the opinion of an expert and the
reasons, if any, given for it. However, you are not bound by any expert opinion. Give the expert
opinion the importance that you believe it deserves.
Evidence of other acts of the defendant has been admitted in this case. You must not consider
this evidence to prove the defendant’s character or that the defendant acted in conformity with
that character. You may, however, consider that evidence only as it relates to the defendant’s
motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or
accident.
You must evaluate the defendant’s testimony the same way as any witness’ testimony.
The State need not prove motive, but you may consider motive or lack of motive in reaching
your verdict.
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
Now that all the evidence has been presented, it is my duty under the law to give you the
instructions that apply in this case. The instructions contain all rules of the law that are to be
applied by you and all the rules by which you are to weigh the evidence and determine the facts
at issue in deciding this case and reaching a verdict. You must consider the instructions as a
whole. All the testimony and evidence that is proper for you to consider has been introduced in
this case. You should not consider any matter of fact or of law except that which has been given
to you during the trial of this case.
It is your responsibility as jurors to determine the facts from the evidence, to follow the rules of
law as stated in these instructions, and to reach a fair and impartial verdict of guilty or not guilty
based upon the evidence, as you have sworn you would do. You must not use any method of
chance in arriving at a verdict, but must base your verdict on the judgment of each juror.
(2) Elements of the Charges:
In this matter, the Defendant has been charged with the crime of Murder, under Iowa Code
Section 707.
To this charge, the Defendant has entered a plea of not guilty.
I will now define the elements for this charge:
Murder – Iowa Code Section 707:
The Defendant is charged with Murder. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Defendant killed another person with malice aforethought.
- 14 -Malice is hatred, ill-will, or hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a
wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with an intent to inflict an injury or under
circumstances such that the law will infer an evil intent.
Malice aforethought does not require that the malice exists for any particular time before the act
is committed, but malice must exist in the mind of the Defendant just before and at the time of
the act is committed. Therefore, there must be a combination of the previous evil intent and the
act.
Malice aforethought may be express or inferred. These terms, “express” and “inferred” do not
mean different kinds of malice but merely the manner in which malice may be shown to exist.
That is, either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances that are
proved. Express malice is shown when a person speaks words that express hatred or ill-will for
another or when the person prepared beforehand to do the act that was later accomplished; for
example, lying in wait for a person or any other acts of preparation showing that the deed was in
the Defendant’s mind would be express malice.
Malice may be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life. Inferred malice
may also arise when the deed is done with a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is any article,
instrument, or substance which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Whether an
instrument has been used as a deadly weapon depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case.
In this case, the State has alleged that the murder involved the intentional killing of Cora Reichel.
Therefore, in order to prove the Defendant guilty of Murder, the State must prove the following:
The Defendant took the life of Cora Reichel with malice aforethought.
If, after considering all of the evidence, you conclude that the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime of murder in violation of Iowa Code
Section 707, you must return a verdict of guilty as to this charge on the jury verdict form. If, on
the other hand, you conclude that the State has failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime of murder in violation of State Code
Section 707, you must return a verdict of not guilty as to this charge on the jury verdict form.
Verdict Instructions:
After you have retired to consider your verdict, a member of the jury is selected as your
foreperson and then you begin your deliberations. The foreperson is to maintain orderly
deliberations but should have no greater influence on the deliberations than any other member of
the jury. Your verdict must be unanimous. When you have agreed on a verdict, your foreperson
will sign the verdict form, and you will, as a body, return the verdict form in open court.
Verdict Form:
The verdict form approved by the Court is attached hereto.
- 15 -IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CRIMINAL LAW NO. _21-CR-38-21_
)
v. )
)
DANA BAYLESS , )
)
Defendant )
JURY VERDICT FORM
We, the jury, empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled cause, do, upon our oaths, find as follows:
As to COUNT I for Murder in the First Degree, Iowa Code Section 707, we the jury find the Defendant:
Guilty
Not Guilty
Foreperson
16WITNESS
STATEMENTS
17STATEMENT OF ANDRES RIPPERT
1 My name is Andres Rippert. I am a Senior Investigator with the Iowa
2 Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Investigation. I am a specialist in
3 Organized Crime and serve on the Iowa Attorney General’s Task Force on
4 Organized Crime. I am a twenty-six-year veteran of law enforcement and hold a
5 Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice from Southern Iowa University. During my
6 career, I have been involved in every type of criminal investigation at the local,
7 state and federal levels. Early in my law enforcement service, I was an undercover
8 operative placed within the Beatty Wiese criminal operation (or “family”). I was
9 able to infiltrate the highest levels of the organization for a period of four years
10 before FBI ended its sting operation in 2000. While my cover was never blown,
11 anyone familiar with that aspect of Organized Crime would, of course, now
12 recognize me. I have been involved in high profile operations against many of the
13 crime “families.” So, while I can never again serve in an undercover capacity, I
14 have much specialized knowledge of how these organizations operate and have
15 taken the lead on many cases with an organized crime component. I work closely
16 with local law enforcement especially in higher crime metropolitan areas. I have
17 led investigations in the Quad Cities, Waterloo, Cedar Rapids and, of course, Des
18 Moines areas. These have run the full gamut of Organized Crime operations:
19 money laundering, narcotics, human trafficking, protection rackets, illegal gaming,
20 money lending, etc. On rare occasion I have investigated incidents in more rural
21 settings that have some connection to one crime family or another. Usually,
22 though, the crime syndicates like to stick to what they know and in larger, more
23 familiar places.
24 Beside my duties at the Iowa State Patrol, I am on the teaching faculty at the
25 Iowa Police Academy and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I have
1826 been a guest lecturer for Assistant United States Attorneys at the Department of
27 Justice, Office of Legal Education Training Center.
28 As a Senior Investigator, I have made numerous arrests and have been
29 credited with assisting in the prosecutions of multiple dozens of men and women
30 connected with organized crime. I have received awards for my work, including
31 the Medal of Valor, Meritorious Service Medal, Iowa State Patrol Law
32 Enforcement Officer of the Year, and the J. Edgar Hoover Award. My efforts have
33 also been the focus of national media with stories and guest appearances on
34 everything from CNN Investigates to Dateline to CNBC: True Crime to Jerry
35 Springer. I have even served as a Creative Consultant for the Law & Order
36 television series and have consulted on a number of shows and films that feature
37 organized crime themes.
38 I really get irritated when people bring up the four times that I have been
39 investigated by the Internal Affairs Division for possible corruption and
40 connections with organized crime families. Of course, I have connections with
41 organized crime! That’s literally my job. But every once in a while, someone gets a
42 bee in their bonnet and wants to investigate exactly how close those ties are. I
43 understand the first investigation. That was shortly after I completed my
44 undercover work. There was a full and complete investigation to make sure that I
45 was not now a “plant” by criminal organizations within the police department. I
46 passed with flying colors of course, I’m true blue. The other investigations have
47 just been conducted out of spite or jealousy. For example, I was accused of
48 evidence tampering and rigging a case involving Dublin “Db” Beard and her/his
49 brother Russell so that they escaped conviction. Nothing could be further from the
50 truth. I worked hard to convict and to dig up additional evidence. I was cleared by
51 IAD, but there seems to be some residual stink. Even once you’re cleared, the mere
52 fact that there was an Internal Affairs investigation sticks with you. Bringing up
1953 Internal Affairs investigations is just a cheap and underhanded way for defense
54 counsel to discredit me and let a guilty person go free. I guess when neither the
55 facts nor the law are in your clients’ favor, the only thing left is the sling mud. I
56 have never been indicted, suspended or reprimanded for my work. Nothing ever
57 came of any internal investigation. Naturally when you’ve infiltrated the mob,
58 there is always a blur in the public or outsider’s view as to where your loyalties
59 are. But, if you’re going to play the part of an undercover agent, you have to be
60 convincing – or you don’t survive. I got pretty good at acting and sometimes, I
61 admit, it was hard to separate the two lives. Yes, I developed connections with Db,
62 but only to use it against her/him and other violent mobsters.
63 It’s ironic that anyone would accuse me of trying to pin this homicide on
64 Dana Bayless as a subterfuge to let Db go free again. I wanted nothing more than
65 to finally nail Dublin Beard and get her/him off the streets for a good long time. I
66 was initially called in on this homicide because it looked like a mob hit. We had an
67 eyewitness identify Db outside of the restaurant on the evening of September 26.
68 We knew that the victim, Cora Reichel, owed Db more than $200,000 in loans and
69 interest from gambling. There was evidence of threats made upon Ms. Reichel, and
70 evidence of physical violence “messages”, such as cigarette burns, when Cora had
71 not come up with promised payments. And the manner of death, being “iced” in a
72 freezer is a typical MO for a mob hit because it sends a message to others who owe
73 money to the “family.” Based on all of these factors, I had Dublin Bayliss arrested
74 for the murder of Cora Reichel. My original investigation report documents my
75 initial findings and conclusions. Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of my
76 investigation report.
77 But two things gnawed at me. First, I would have expected to find some
78 additional physical violence that had occurred proximate to Reichel’s hypothermia.
79 Typically, loan sharks or their soldiers like to rough up a victim before they
2080 pronounce a death sentence. A strong message is paramount. In this case, although
81 there was a contusion on the back of the victim’s head, there were no signs of
82 serious struggle or physical violence. Ms. Reichel’s body was void of any recent
83 physical abuse. Second, according to the accounting investigation done by Keller
84 Puck, Cora Reichel had been making regular payments Db, and therefore
85 continued to be a source of income to Beard and the family. Loan sharks typically
86 don’t cut off their source of revenue unless it dries up completely or they feel
87 threatened. I don’t see that to be the case for Cora Reichel.
88 My first and foremost responsibility is to uphold the law. As an investigator,
89 I am trained to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I did a complete and
90 thorough investigation. I can’t play favorites. The evidence decides who is arrested
91 and who is not.
92 I had to maintain my objectivity throughout my investigation regardless of
93 how much I might want to implicate Db. I continued my investigation and
94 supplemented my initial investigation report. Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy
95 of my supplemental investigation report. Upon completing my investigation, it
96 became abundantly clear to me that Dana Bayless murdered her/his business
97 partner. Motive was clear. Keller Puck had informed Bayless that Cora Reichel had
98 been stealing money from the business. Reichel’s death was a payback in more
99 ways than one – not only for vengeance, but also to pay back Bayless $500,000
100 through the Buy-Sell life insurance policy. Reichel’s death was an awful
101 convenient way to rid Bayless of a major financial entanglement just as Dana’s
102 television career was about to take off. Obviously, Dana was angry when s/he
103 learned about the theft and the company’s bankrupt condition. More than one
104 witness heard Dana threaten Cora. Plus, Dana definitely had the opportunity;
105 Dublin Beard had staked out Remy the night of September 26 and overheard the
21106 two arguing outside the kitchen back door. Bayless was brandishing a kitchen knife
107 and forced Reichel back into the kitchen.
108 Unfortunately, there is no accurate way to establish time of death merely by
109 observing the body nor through traditional postmortem means since the body was
110 frozen. As a police investigator, I’m trained to use other means, such as witnesses,
111 neighbors, unopened mail, or testimonial or physical evidence. The last person
112 who was with Reichel was Bayless. Upon investigating Reichel’s home, it was
113 apparent that she had not retrieved her mail or picked up any voicemails left at
114 home. Ms. Reichel’s mobile phone was found on her desk in the office at the
115 restaurant. Texts and calls starting late Saturday night/early Sunday morning had
116 not been cleared. It is obvious that this was no accident. The lock on the cooler was
117 engaged from the outside and Cora Reichel herself told us what happened through
118 her own words. She identified her assailants name on the freezer floor with frozen
119 bacon strips. Using the bacon strips stored in the cooler, she spelled out a dying
120 declaration: “Chef DB Killer.”
121 Additionally, it became quite evident that this murder was not committed in
122 the heat of passion but rather was premeditated. Remy had been operating for more
123 than three years prior to this incident. Bayless purchased a lock for the freezer
124 when Reichel was suspected of stealing from the business. Bayless contemplated
125 and planned the whole thing out, forcing Reichel into the freezer, knocking her
126 unconscious, locking her in over the weekend, and making it appear that the loan
127 sharks were making a typical mob hit. Since Remy was closed on Sunday and
128 Monday, Bayless knew that locking Reichel in the freezer on Saturday night would
129 allow plenty of time for the cold to do its work. But Bayless was careless. Dana
130 Bayless’ fingerprints are all over the lock to the cooler, the freezer door, and the
131 kitchen knife. Bayless also didn’t know that there was a witness lurking in the
132 shadows in the alley facing the kitchen’s back door and who heard enough to know
22133 what was happening. We did not find fingerprints or DNA evidence of Dublin
134 Beard in the restaurant at all.
135 I did meet briefly with that hotshot TV personality, Winn Nguyen, who tried
136 to inject her/himself into the investigation. I saw Nguyen’s involvement as pure
137 self-promotion. Nguyen had concocted some story about offering Dana Bayless a
138 show on the network – blah, blah, blah. I think like recognizes like. One scam artist
139 trying to help out another scam artist. I’m sorry, it all seems a bit too slick for my
140 liking. When you boil it all down, Winn Nguyen didn’t actually witness anything.
141 S/he neither saw nor heard anything useful. Even if her/his story is taken at face
142 value, s/he was sitting in a vehicle outside the Front of the restaurant while the
143 mischief and mayhem was taking place in the back. Unreliable rental car clocks are
144 not the basis for dismissal of hard evidence. Moreover, the timing is not
145 inconsistent. It would not have taken Bayless very long to force Reichel into the
146 freezer, knock her unconscious, and lock the door before heading out the front to
147 meet Nguyen.
148 I conducted a complete and thorough investigation. I interviewed all relevant
149 parties, including the co-owner, the Executive Chef, the Pastry Chef, the kitchen
150 staff and all other employees at work on Saturday, September 26. While the back
151 door to the restaurant was dented and scraped, there was no sign of forced entry
152 and no sign of robbery. The restaurant employee who arrived on Tuesday morning
153 found the place locked and secured with nothing out of the ordinary until looking
154 in the freezer.
155 Following standard investigative procedure, it’s clear to me that Chef
156 Bayless had means, motive and opportunity.
231
STATEMENT OF KELLER PUCK
1 My name is Keller Puck. I am a certified public accountant in private
2 practice based in Los Angeles, California. A true and accurate copy of my
3 curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 4. To review, I graduated from Purdue
4 University in 1994 with a degree in accounting, cum laude. After my studies at
5 Purdue, I was highly recruited by what was then considered the Big 8 CPA firms. I
6 went to work for Arthur Andersen in Chicago as an auditor; that was well before
7 its demise from the Enron and WorldCom debacles. I hate to even mention my
8 prior relationship with Arthur Andersen. However, when I was with the firm, it had
9 the reputation of supporting the highest standard in the accounting industry. I was
10 quickly recognized as a star and was promoted to Manager after only 3 years; the
11 usual track for a Manager position is 4 to 5 years.
12 I left Arthur Andersen in 2000 to establish a firm of my own, Account-
13 Ability, ironic given my Arthur Andersen connection. Over the past 20 years,
14 we’ve grown from a boutique 4-person operation to a national force, with offices
15 in a dozen cities across the country. We offer our clients full-service accounting
16 expertise. I, myself, lead the Southern California branch, at the corporate
17 headquarters in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. The L.A. office specializes in
18 forensic accounting. The Enron and WorldCom problems shed light on corporate
19 scandals and the need for highly qualified forensic accountants to pursue all leads.
20 Forensic Accountants are trained to look beyond the numbers and deal with the
21 business reality of a situation. According to research conducted by the Association
22 of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), U.S. organizations lose an estimated 5% of
23 annual revenues to fraud. Based on the estimated U.S. Gross Domestic Product
24 (GDP) for 2019 - $21.43 trillion – this percentage indicates a staggering estimate
25 of losses around $1 trillion among organizations, despite increased emphasis on
2426 anti-fraud control and recent legislation to combat fraud. The mission of a fraud
27 examiner is to reduce the incidence of fraud and white-collar crime and to assist
28 the client in detection and deterrence.
29 Our Southern California office has a varied clientele, ranging from small
30 businesses and individuals to major corporate clients within the entertainment
31 industry. It’s funny where life leads you. Early on in the life of the new business, I
32 did some work for a film company shooting in the Chicago area. That work led to
33 more referrals and more referrals until I’m now widely known for my accounting
34 work in Hollywood. When I take on a client, especially in this industry, I offer
35 complete confidentiality as well as what I call “enhanced accounting” – looking
36 not just at the financial statements but the totality of economic circumstances
37 which impact a business or individual. This comprehensive approach gives a more
38 accurate snapshot and can lead to a better decision-making process on whether to
39 invest or hire an individual. In essence, we’ve created a hybrid financial
40 investigation and personal investigation system to vet potential hires or
41 partnerships. This has been extremely successful for my firm – and for me
42 personally. I love to travel, meet new people, and encounter new experiences.
43 When I take on an assignment from a client, I go all in.
44 I am regularly engaged by various TV and film production companies to
45 make a few discreet enquiries on their behalf. I seem to have developed a sub-
46 specialty of sorts within the food television industry. I have undertaken a number
47 of “deep dives” on behalf of executives at Food Network, Bravo, HGTV, and
48 others. My investigative findings have given producers background information
49 they need to either engage or disengage contract negotiations. Winn Nguyen,
50 television food personality, host and executive producer at Good Taste Television
51 (GTTV), has had me look into a few potential ventures with up-and-coming chefs
52 for potential shows. It was not unusual then that I received a call from Winn to do
2553 a background investigation of Dana Bayless and her/his restaurant, Remy, in Iowa.
54 However, it was peculiar that Winn specifically mentioned potential problems with
55 the restaurant’s financial position generally and Chef Bayless’ business partner,
56 Cora Reichel in particular.
57 Winn indicated that s/he would have Chef Bayless contact me directly, but
58 that I should not let Bayless know that I was engaged in anything more than an
59 audit of the financials. I could tell that Winn had something up her/his sleeve, most
60 likely a potential hire for the network, but did not want to tip off the prospective
61 partner. I’m savvy to this approach and knew that I could keep off the radar
62 beyond the bookkeeping investigation.
63 Dana Bayless contacted me on September 8. S/he indicated that Winn
64 Nguyen had recommended my firm and gave me details (most of which I already
65 knew). Dana asked specifically if I would undertake a financial investigation of
66 her/his business and make recommendations for increasing profitability.
67 Bayless indicated that s/he and Cora Reichel were partners in a restaurant
68 business in Bondurant, Iowa (Des Moines metro area) that had been open for 3 ½
69 years. Dana did not indicate any concern about fraud or wrongdoing. S/he merely
70 wanted to know why the business was in the red when it seemed like there was a
71 steadily growing customer base. In a study done by Ohio State University,
72 researchers found that the highest rate of failure in the restaurant industry was
73 during the first year, when more than a quarter of businesses failed. Another 20%
74 went under in the second year, and a further 15% could not survive year 3. So,
75 while it was not unusual for a restaurant to fail in the first three years, it was a bit
76 surprising to hear that Remy was going under given the positive buzz in the
77 community, glowing critic reviews in print and on-line, and the growing fame and
78 notoriety of Chef Bayless.
2679 I toured the restaurant facilities on September 10 to get a feel for the day-to-
80 day management and to get an overview of the financial records and record
81 keeping of the business. I advised Dana that in order for me to do a complete
82 financial review, audit, and forensic investigation, I would need complete access to
83 all accounting records for a period of two weeks, starting on September 14. We
84 agreed on a flat fee of $10,000 for the two weeks of accounts auditing. I received
85 an additional fee of $15,000 from Winn Nguyen’s production company for the
86 “enhanced” investigation. Chef Bayless agreed to allow me to review the financials
87 on the restaurant premises. That way I had access to the records I needed without
88 disrupting business. That arrangement also gave me an opportunity to observe the
89 normal operation of the place and take note of anything out of the ordinary or
90 suspicious. Dana paid me up front from a personal account.
91 While I was waiting to begin the audit, I took the opportunity to get a feel
92 for the community and gauge the reputation of the restaurant, the chef and the
93 business partner, Cora Reichel. My informal market research takes a rather
94 unorthodox approach, but it has been successful in gauging business reputation,
95 community standing and the like. It also allows me to dig up any rumors or
96 innuendo (gossip page stuff) that might impact the business. I attended gatherings
97 of potential restaurant patrons – these were classy, upscale events: golf outings,
98 chamber of commerce style meet-and-greets, social networking events, executive
99 club lunches, etc. I got a great feel for the vibrant Greater Des Moines area (and
100 got invited to a lot of parties). I found that Remy has a good reputation and stellar
101 reviews. Almost everyone I spoke with could identify Dana Bayless by name.
102 Almost all mentioned Chef Bayless’ appearances on television food shows. The
103 Des Moines movers and shakers felt that those shows provided “street cred” and
104 bolstered the brand.
27105 A few folks that I interacted with were also able to identify Cora Reichel as
106 a partner in the business. However, Cora was held in a less positive light. While
107 she appeared to be a fixture in the community and was commended for various
108 outreach initiatives, I did hear (often in great detail) about Cora’s involvement with
109 gambling and suspected shady dealings. During the course of my “pre-search” I
110 did hear the name Dublin Beard a few times. It seems that it was no deep dark
111 secret that Reichel – and by extension Dana Bayless – had a connection to
112 organized crime. That set some serious bells off for me! The last thing Winn
113 Nguyen or GTTV would want is even the inkling of a mob connection.
114 On Monday, September 14, I began my “official” financial investigation of
115 the restaurant and business partnership. While at the restaurant, I observed a well-
116 maintained, well-organized, and well-managed company. Lots of freedom was
117 given to individual managers and employees. The staff all seemed to be on board
118 with the mission and business goals. The employees appeared content and proud to
119 be part of the brand. During my two-week review, I observed a brisk business with
120 standard turn-over. Friday and Saturday evenings were at maximum cover.
121 Tuesday through Thursday dinner service was at or above market average for this
122 demographic. Lunch service during the week consisted of a steady stream of
123 business regulars.
124 During my initial conversations with Dana Bayless, I could tell that s/he was
125 accounting-challenged. Chef Dana has great creativity with food preparation and
126 presentation, restaurant style, and service, but more or less left Cora Reichel to
127 handle the financials. I was not present when Chef Bayless informed Ms. Reichel
128 that I had been engaged to do a forensic audit, so I cannot state what Cora’s
129 reaction was. I didn’t notice anything particularly suspicious from Cora when I was
130 performing my accounting work during the two-week period. Well, there were two
131 times when Cora was back in the office area with me and I had some cancelled
28132 checks, bank statements and ledger cards on the desk, and she spilled coffee all
133 over the records. At first, I thought it was an accident. The second time, I thought
134 Cora was either clumsy or perhaps was doing something more sinister in
135 obliterating the records. If it was an attempt to destroy the records, it was a very
136 poor effort – most of the records have a digital back-up that can be easily retrieved.
137 I overheard a few conversations that Cora had on the phone – once during
138 the first week that I was there, and then 2 or 3 times the following week. Cora told
139 the person on the phone, “I promised you I would get the money, just give me
140 time,” and “There’s no need to use threats, you’ll get your money,” and “Yes, I
141 remember what happened last time when the payment wasn’t on time. Please
142 don’t. That won’t be necessary. I’ll pay you. I promise.” She was upset by the calls
143 but didn’t seem scared. Initially, I thought Cora’s conversations were with a
144 vendor or supplier. In the restaurant business, if you can’t pay your bills, the
145 deliveries stop, and the shop will go belly up. In retrospect, I think the telephone
146 conversations were probably between Cora and Dublin Beard. Dublin (or Db as
147 s/he is referred to by most “in the know” in the community) was probably
148 threatening Cora to repay her gambling debts. I never heard who was on the other
149 side of the conversation or what the caller said, and Cora never spoke with me
150 about it. During the first week I was there, Cora came into the restaurant and had a
151 burn mark on her hand. Another time she had evident bruising on her neck, as if
152 someone had choked her. I did not ask any questions.
153 During the period that I was at the restaurant, I frequently saw a person in
154 the shadows in the alley across the street from the from Remy’s back door. At the
155 time, I just assumed that they worked at one of the businesses across the way and
156 were taking a cigarette break. I now recognize the person lurking in the shadows to
157 be Dublin “Db” Beard. If Beard were in the same position on the night of
158 September 26, s/he would have a good view of anything going on outside the
29159 restaurant’s back door to the kitchen. Despite the darkness of the alley, there was a
160 light right above the back door’s entrance to the restaurant. I also noticed a
161 distinctive vehicle frequently parked in the alley or nearby. I’m not a gearhead, but
162 it looked like an older, light blue Cadillac, like something I remember seeing in
163 those 1970’s TV Detective shows like Starsky and Hutch or Mannix or Cannon.
164 Restaurants are notorious for losing money due to employee embezzlement.
165 The most common cash fraud scheme is skimming. Skimming is the process by
166 which cash is removed from the company before it enters its accounting system.
167 Retail establishments and particularly restaurants where cash is used frequently are
168 vulnerable to this type of scheme. A related type of scheme is to ring up a sale for
169 less than the actual amount. A fraudster then pockets the difference between the
170 actual sale and the amount on the register tape.
171 If the same employee collects the cash and makes the bank deposit, they
172 have an excellent opportunity to misappropriate company funds. For example, an
173 employee may receive the daily receipts from the cashier, along with the cash
174 register tapes. The employee would then mutilate the register tapes so that they
175 could not be read. With the evidence now destroyed, the employee would pocket a
176 portion of the day’s receipts and deposit the balance. If the daily deposit amounts
177 are not compared with the cash register tapes, the fraud can go undetected.
178 Checks can also be the instrument of fraud. Employees with signature
179 authority can make checks payable to cash or to themselves personally. Someone
180 with check signatory authority can simply write the check to themselves or cash,
181 mark the check as being void in the company’s check register and then inflate the
182 amount of another check written to a company supplier for inventory. When the
183 bank statements are received, the employee removes the checks and destroys them.
184 Kiting is the process whereby money is received but not recorded
185 immediately on the books and is then embezzled by an employee. As money
30186 continues to come in, the funds received subsequently are applied to the prior
187 receipts that were not recorded. Thus, there is a continuing lag of funds from the
188 actual receipts, but it is covered up because the money is deposited later.
189 Even with the majority of transactions using credit cards, there are ways to
190 keep money off of the books. For example, Remy uses a Square device for
191 electronic payment. However, it is entirely possible that a duplicate device can be
192 substituted to mimic the actual account – resulting in payment to a different
193 account. This is a practice commonly known as spoofing. While I found no
194 evidence of this form of embezzlement (it would have required Reichel or some
195 other entity to have set up a dummy corporation for restaurant receipts), it would
196 not surprise me in the least. Therefore, the total amount that I identified in the audit
197 would be the minimum amount embezzled from the restaurant
198 In performing my forensic investigation, I reviewed all relevant records and
199 documents. I also personally interviewed Dana Bayless, Cora Reichel, and key
200 staff, including Kristen Shaffer, who fills in as Front of House manager when
201 Reichel was unavailable to understand the flow of money, and internal controls
202 present in the company. Although both Dana and Cora had authority to sign
203 checks, Cora primarily assumed that role. Dana managed the kitchen staff, the
204 menus, ordering food supplies, scheduling employees, reservations, and keeping
205 the customers happy. Cora served as front-of-house manager and operated the cash
206 register during service and managed the financial aspects of the business.
207 During the first week of my investigation, I started to strongly suspect that
208 Cora Reichel had been stealing from the restaurant. I don’t believe I mention my
209 suspicions to anyone at Remy right away, but I did express my suspicions to Winn
210 Nguyen. Both Reichel and Bayless asked me how the investigation was
211 proceeding, but I did not verbalize any conclusions until my investigation was
212 complete. I am all about precision and accuracy, which is part of my draw to
31213 accounting. In my view, it’s important to have all your facts and figures together
214 before any conclusions are announced.
215 After I had completed my two-week forensic investigation, it was evident
216 that Cora had been taking cash from Remy for some time. I found evidence of each
217 of the typical embezzlement schemes mentioned previously. For example,
218 skimming had occurred. There were several instances where one of the wait staff
219 had a copy of an order ticket in their book, but the order was not included on the
220 cash register receipt for the day. An example of this is shown in Exhibit 5. The
221 check marks on the cash register receipt are my notation for crosschecking the
222 order tickets to the daily cash register receipt. I cannot say for certain that
223 skimming is attributable to Reichel. Someone else could have been managing the
224 cash register at the time. However, in looking at the events as a whole, there are
225 circumstances that I can directly point to Reichel. For example, certain daily cash
226 register tapes did not match to the deposit that was made. These deposit slips were
227 written in Cora’s handwriting, and were part of her normal job responsibilities, not
228 the responsibility of any other employee. Thus, as you will see from Exhibit 6,
229 which has the deposit slip in the amount of 587.93 on June 8, 2020, even though
230 the cash register tapes show receipts from Friday in the amount of $2299.61 and
231 Saturday for $3098.57. Finally, I encountered checks that were written to cash or
232 to Cora personally and were shown as void in the check register, but actually
233 cleared the bank. In order to balance the account, other checks in the register and
234 ledger accounts were manipulated to increase payment to cover the amount of the
235 “voided” check to Reichel. Exhibit7 is an example of this occurrence.
236 In total, I uncovered 67 instances of embezzlement committed by Cora
237 Reichel totaling $273,958 over the past two years. It appears that no embezzlement
238 occurred during the first year that the restaurant was in operation. Of the 67
239 instances, more than half occurred in the six-month period prior to September 14.
32240 Unfortunately, the theft has left Remy with little or no operating capital. Remy is
241 operating at a net loss of $164,554 and negative cash flow. Vendors refuse to
242 supply product to a restaurant until outstanding accounts are brought current.
243 I broke the news to Dana Bayless on Friday, September 25 at about 3 p.m. I
244 informed Dana that my forensic investigation revealed that Remy was bankrupt
245 due to numerous occasions of embezzlement by her/his partner, Cora Reichel, and
246 that the amount embezzled was $273,958. At first, Dana appeared to be in shock,
247 repeating several times, “How could this happen?” The more I explained to Dana
248 the specifics of the embezzlement and giving her/him examples of the skimming,
249 check fraud, and deposit manipulation, the more I saw pure rage in Dana’s face.
250 S/he said, “Well, I’ll make Cora pay for this. She won’t make a fool out of me.”
251 Bayless told me that I had done my job and could leave and that s/he would
252 confront Reichel alone.
253 Just prior to meeting with Dana Bayless, I reported my findings to Winn
254 Nguyen. Winn was not at all pleased, but pointedly asked if any of the
255 embezzlement might by traced back to Chef Dana. When I said that my findings
256 were conclusive that Bayless had nothing to do with the financial improprieties,
257 Winn was relieved and said that there were still a few options. S/he was
258 determined to bring Chef Dana Bayless into the GTTV universe. Winn indicated
259 that s/he would reach out to Bayless personally to discuss damage control and to
260 make sure that Dana didn’t “do anything stupid.”
261 I had exited the restaurant when I realized that I had left some of my
262 personal belongings on the desk in the office area. When I went back to retrieve
263 them, I overheard Bayless talking to Reichel in strained, but surprisingly controlled
264 hush tones. I couldn’t hear everything that was said clearly because I was standing
265 near the kitchen door to the hallway by the office and the kitchen staff were pulling
266 out pots and pans in preparation for dinner service and making loud clanging and
33You can also read
