Glenfield Joseph Shannon, 42, entered a plea of manslaughter on Thursday, May 18th, which carries a felony sentence of 10 years or more. The hearing lasted for less than five minutes.
The request comes just under two weeks before Brandt was scheduled to go on trial for the killing of 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson.
Brandt’s attorney, Mark Friese, stated in an email to The Forum that Shannon has consistently acknowledged his role in the unfortunate incident and has never refuted his responsibility. By pleading guilty, Shannon can take accountability while also reducing the strain and emotional burden on everyone involved.
Judge Bradley Cruff has requested a pre-sentencing investigation in order to ascertain a suggested penalty. Prosecutors have reached a consensus to drop the felony charge of fleeing the accident site.
Brandt’s sentencing will occur at a later time.
In a McHenry alley, Brandt initially struck Ellingson, from Grace City, with a vehicle shortly after 2 a.M. On September 18. Brandt was charged with criminal vehicular manslaughter, and the offense carried a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment.
The North Dakota Highway Patrol said two people got into a political argument after the motorist, who thought the teenager claiming to be an extremist Republican, was calling people.
During a preliminary hearing, prosecutors stated that the narrative was unclear about why two paths crossed and why they were arguing. However, later on, the patrol backtracked on that statement.
“Inaccurate allegations” stated state troopers said Friese. Ellingson was attempting to flee and mentioned a Republican radical organization, as per a 911 transcript, Brandt mentioned.
On September 30th, Kara Brinster, the State’s Attorney of Foster County, filed the more severe accusation of murder. The man from North Dakota could have potentially faced a lifetime imprisonment, a felony that prominent members of the Republican party questioned why Brandt had not been indicted for murder, thus causing widespread anger throughout the country.
Brinster’s charge of manslaughter was lowered earlier this month due to public uproar. However, Friese, despite alleging a more serious charge, did not provide a reason for seeking it. Brinster did not disclose his reasons in the forum either.
Brinster did not respond to a message left by The Forum, also not responding to a comment requesting a response. Tim O’Keeffe, the Attorney representing the Ellingson family, did not comment as well.
If a person knowingly or intentionally causes the death of another, they are guilty of murder. However, if Brandt caused Ellingson’s death recklessly by running him over, it would be considered manslaughter.
According to court documents, it was claimed that Brandt had consumed “10 to 13 beers at the bar before the crash.” Brinster mentioned that Brandt had been drinking prior to the accident.
According to the statutes of North Dakota, the degree of responsibility for manslaughter is lesser in comparison to murder due to the fact that the term “recklessly” implies that an individual did not intentionally cause the demise or possess knowledge of engaging in a criminal act.
In order to murder Ellingson, he employed a “risky weapon” that could potentially result in her receiving a sentence of up to 20 years in jail. Brinster pursued a hazardous special offender classification against Brandt, but that accusation would usually carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
The plea agreement required Brinster to relinquish that title.
Brinster stated that conducting the trial in Foster County would pose difficulties in finding an impartial jury for Brandt. The attorneys reached a consensus to relocate the trial to Wahpeton in Richland County. The trial was scheduled to commence on May 30th and was anticipated to endure for a duration of nine days.
Prosecutors had approved over 100 witnesses, but a list submitted in court reduced that figure by 50 percent.
Following the collision, state troopers did not promptly capture images of the accident site. According to a report prepared by a seasoned private investigator with a background in law enforcement and investigative tasks, it was mentioned that the defense intended to highlight different concerns which might have cast uncertainty on the case.
The summary report filed this week raises suspicions about the lack of a reconstruction, considering the State Patrol’s involvement in a considerable number of reconstructions in cases involving fatal accidents.
The Forum informed State Patrol Capt. Bryan Niewind that photographs were not captured soon after the collision because Brandt neglected to call 911 promptly following the occurrence. Troopers subsequently captured images of Brandt’s automobile and the area was documented using a drone.
Niewind stated, “The place where the incident occurred was able to verify and had the opportunity to capture photographs as a component of the inquiry when law enforcement were capturing pictures.” “In the initial stages of the inquiry, there were various aspects to consider, such as determining Ellingson’s state, finding Brandt, locating the vehicle implicated in the incident, interviewing witnesses, and fulfilling several other investigative requirements.”
Stated in his report, the private investigator hired by the defense failed to establish a barrier around the crash site to prevent public access. It was mentioned in the report that several pieces of evidence were not gathered or analyzed to ascertain their importance, and only a small amount of investigative work was carried out at the scene to determine the direction of the vehicle.
The report stated that the remarks made by various state patrol officers in their report would provide insight into whether this was an intentional or accidental act, posing a challenge for those trying to discern it.
Niewind mentioned that a law enforcement officer stayed at the accident location until the area was examined.
Obtaining a counterfeit identification assisted him in evading the alcohol prohibition imposed by his family, the Ellingsons. It was stated that this action may have contributed to the death of Friese, as it could potentially expose the teen’s previous instances of alleged bullying and inappropriate behavior. The defense requested access to the data extracted from Ellingson’s cellphone, which could potentially reveal this information.
Briefs from the defense also claimed that Ellingson demonstrated “aggressive or instigative behavior” and harassed others in the past.
According to the defense, an autopsy report revealed that Ellingson had a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.2%.
Following the collision, a motion submitted by the defense claimed that the examination was conducted five hours later. According to state troopers, Brandt’s blood alcohol concentration was at the minimum 0.08% subsequent to the accident.
As stated in the brief filed on Thursday, the defense intended to provide evidence of Brandt’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. In that very same brief, it was mentioned that Brandt made several phone calls to his parents on the morning of the accident, alleging that Ellingson was posing a threat to him.
Mr. Brandt’s parents will testify that they observed him in a state of fear beyond any level they had witnessed in the past 42 years.
Prosecutors attempted to stop the defense from introducing details about Brandt’s medical condition to a jury.
Following him, there was another person who stated that Ellingson’s parents also called before the crash. The accusations made by Ellingson’s family against their son were baseless and took the form of victim-blaming.