Klein (Direct)

Question 1

How are you employed?

Answer 1

I have been working for the Esseph County District Attorney’s Office in the Public Accountability Unit since 2018

Question 2

What are your primary responsibilities in this role?

Answer 2

My primary responsibilities include auditing public officials for potential misconduct.

Question 3

What degrees do you possess?

Answer 3

I possess a bachelor’s degree in American History from Sonoma State University in 1999 as well as a masters degree in Criminology from UC Davis which I received in 2001.

Question 4

What kind of training have you received?

Answer 4

I have received basic training at the police academy as well as further training and certification in law enforcement standards and investigative procedures

Question 5

How long have you worked in law enforcement?

Answer 5

Nearly two decades

Question 6

What about public accountability cases, how many public accountability cases have you participated in?

Answer 6

Over 200

Question 7

What kind of issues have these cases revolved around?

Answer 7

Primarily fraud, corruption, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, and excessive use of force

Question 8

As part of your audit of government misconduct, do you compare the subjects of your investigations against widely-accepted industry standards and best practices.

Answer 8

Yes

Question 9

Did you do so in this case?

Answer 9

Yes

Question 10

Is your conclusion in this matter within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

So, let’s turn to that opinion first, and then we will go through the basis of the opinion. What opinion did you reach in this case?

Answer 11

I reached three opinions after reviewing all of the evidence:

The first was that the defendant and detective michaels knew departmental policy regarding confidential informants, contact with witnesses, and the requirement to use visual and audio recorders when taking statements.

The second was that they intentionally engaged in a course of conduct that violates those policies with regards to Burgess.

Finally, that as a result of their violations, an innocent person was charged, tried convicted, and incarcerated.

Question 12

What kind of Reputation did the sheriff’s office possess at the time of the Larson murder?

Answer 12

Up until the Larson Murder, the Sheriff’s Office had a 100% homicide arrest rate, and of those arrests, a 100% conviction rate. This all changed when the DA’s office initially refused to prosecute Reese for the Larson murder

Question 13

What about Election Pressure Sheriff Klein was facing, what was happening with the sheriff’s election campaign at this time?

Answer 13

Well, he had low approval ratings up until the trial and its aftermath became widely publicized throughout Empirion. Klein ended up winning the election after and was re-seated as the elected sheriff.

Question 14

How did you get involved in this case?

Answer 14

I was assigned by the District Attorney’s Office to conduct an investigation into Jaylen Burgess’s claims of being paid for their false testimony by Sheriff Michelin Klein. I was also asked to make a recommendation regarding potential criminal charges against Klein.

Question 15

How did you become aware of these claims?

Answer 15

On May 16, 2021, Jaylen Burgess submitted a declaration signed under penalty of perjury admitting to lying during their September 2013 interview with Detective Mckenzie Michaels, and lying under oath about the identification of Matthew Reese during their murder trial in 2016.

Question 16

Did the District Attorney’s Office immediately file charges?

Answer 16

No, as there was not sufficient evidence.

Question 17

What led to charges being filed against Reese?

Answer 17

As soon as Burgess came forward and claimed to be an eyewitness in the shooting following an ENN broadcast coordinated by Klein

Question 18

Was that all Burgess did in the case?

Answer 18

No, he also testified at the trial regarding his observation of the shooting.

Question 19

How did you begin your investigation into the sheriff?

Answer 19

I began by reviewing Burgess’s declaration, then called Burgess to conduct a follow-up interview.

Question 20

What did you learn during your interview with him?

Answer 20

He told me how he met Klein following a robbery and how he assumed an informal community-informant relationship with Klein and provided background information on various matters. He also told me he was paid for his testimony in the Reese trial.

Question 21

How were the payments to Burgess made?

Answer 21

Klein made dozens of payments to them before the trial, as early as 2012 and continued periodically after the trial. The payments were usually in cash, but sometimes by check or the mobile payment app, E-Pay. Klein would sometimes say they were a way of saying thanks for “Burgess’s help” or “to support the family.” As Matthew Reese’s trial drew closer, Klein would just give the money without any explanation.

Question 22

Was there a pattern with the payments as the trial approached?

Answer 22

Yes, they became larger. There was a payment of $3000 the week before trial and a payment of $5000 after Burgess testified

Question 23

Did you interview anybody else?

Answer 23

Yes I interviewed both Mckenzie Micheals and Michelin Klein

Question 24

Let’s start with Micheals, did you learn anything significant from his interview?

Answer 24

Not really, I learned that he followed the same standards and procedures used in all homicide investigations and that Klein was very upset following the DA’s decline to file charges against Reese.

Question 25

What about Klein’s interview, can you describe that?

Answer 25

Yes, initially he was very cooperative and stated he had nothing to hide. He even turned over both his cell and work phone, from which I extracted data.

Question 26

Did his attitude ever change?

Answer 26

Yes, he became defensive when I mentioned his bank records.

Question 27

What evidence did you collect to aid you in your investigation?

Answer 27

I collected the records of the State v. Reese trial and took photographs and obtained maps of relevant locations in this case, which are reflected by Exhibits 1-8.

Question 28

Were you provided with any evidence aside from what you obtained?

Answer 28

Yes, Jaylen handed me a handwritten note and envelope during his interview. The note contained a message stating “J- Thanks for your help. Vote Klein - MSK.” This is reflected by Exhibit 9

Question 29

Did you obtain any evidence from the Esseph County Sheriff’s Office?

Answer 29

Yes, I filed a Public Records Act request for the Esseph County Sheriff’s Office to provide “all internal records documenting workplace misconduct by Michelin Klein.” In response I received Exhibit 17, an internal memorandum documenting four instances of alleged misconduct by Klein. Unfortunately, because Klein terminated our interview early, I was unable to ask Klein any details about the underlying conduct described in it. Exhibit 17

Question 30

What evidence did you obtain regarding communication between Micheals and Burgess?

Answer 30

On May 29, 2022, I authored a search warrant for all text messages exchanged between Jaylen Burgess and Mckenzie Michaels between 13-SEPT-2013 to 31-DEC-2016. In the text message report I found infrequent texts between Burgess and Micheals, usually involving Michaels checking on Burgess. Exhibit 19

Question 31

What about communication between Klein and Burgess?

Answer 31

I got a search warrant for all text messages between these two as well. I noted that Klein and Burgess texted frequently. Klein would direct Burgess about various times and places. There is also repeated mention of money and locations in Pasquale in the messages. I also obtained a call log report between the two, from which I noted a large volume of calls from Klein to Burgess with increasing frequency in the days leading up to Reese’s trial in June 2016. Exhibit 20

Question 32

What about communication between Klein and Micheals?

Answer 32

Similar situation with the other text messages I received. The texts didn’t reveal anything overly alarming though Klein did mention how without a big win soon, he would be “cooked”

Question 33

I’d like to focus on those emails for a minute. Did Klein make any attempts to solve the Larson murder?

Answer 33

Yes Klein arranged the ENN broadcast of a townhall meeting on 8/30/13 (a week after 9/6/13 text saying thanks for talking last week)

Question 34

What happened at this meeting?

Answer 34

This is where Klein stated that Burgess came up to him to say he/she had general information on the Larson case.

Question 35

What happened after this?

Answer 35

After the townhall meeting, after claiming Burgess said this to him, Klein emailed Det. Michaels that he’d put money on someone coming forward on the Larson murder with the information the police needed to make a case

Question 36

What other communication did you find after this?

Answer 36

Then Klein texted Burgess on 9/6/13 to arrange for him/her to come in on 9/13 down to the station. Two days after that text, Klein called Burgess and had a 14 minute unrecorded conversation. Then Burgess came in on 9/13 and implicated and ID’d Reese

Question 37

Were you able to find any financial transactions between Klein and Burgess?

Answer 37

Yes I obtained both the bank record report and E-pay records of Klein. I noted several recurring cash withdrawals of increasing frequency and of increasing amounts leading up to the June 2016 trial. This appears consistent with Burgess’s claims that Klein made repeated payments to them in cash before and after the trial. The screenshot of EPay transfers shows a total of five payments made by Klein to Burgess in amounts of $500, $500, $500, $700, and $900 respectively. Additionally, I noted that the payment amounts increase as Reese’s murder trial approaches.

Question 38

What evidence relating to Klein’s reelection campaign did you collect?

Answer 38

I collected various pieces of election campaign material, all of which seemed to focus on decreasing crime and the Larson murder. I also collected his poll data report, which showed that Klein’s approval rose sharply following the conviction of Reese.

Question 39

What did you do as a result of your investigation?

Answer 39

After a thorough review of the witness statements, court records, and physical evidence, I believe that there is probable cause that Sheriff Michelin Klein committed subornation of perjury, and bribery of a witness, Based on the foregoing, I filed an arrest warrant for Michelin Klein.