- Joined
- Oct 27, 2021
Absolutely. He's trying to thread the needle. But he also still wants her.If true I assume it’s more that Nick is scared of what this crazy dumped side piece would do if she were kicked out their house and dropped entirely. What she knows, the degree of balldo degeneracy, and her consent to the bodycam footage are all balls Nick is trying to keep up in the air successfully.
Still don't see prosecutors getting that fussed about managing some defendant's conduct to this degree (nor do I think they should; let the dumbass be responsible for his own choices and where they lead). This "condition" would make about as much sense as telling the Rekietas they can't use the Balldo anymore or prohibiting Doritos and spaghettios in the house.This was my first reaction as well that a no-contact order for a non-victim is out of the ordinary, but on second thought this makes more sense if the state is shoehorning it into drug cases' extremely common probation conditions prohibiting the convict's contact with known drug users or with known felons going forward. Typically it would prohibit contact with an entire class of people defined that way, but since the state would be in possession of April's allegedly clean test results and since it's as yet unknown whether April will be convicted of her felony charge at all or whether her sentence upon conviction would get knocked down to a misdemeanor after probation, those broad classes wouldn't necessarily encompass April at all times, so it wouldn't be outside the bounds of reason or legality for the state to get creative with a no-contact condition singling her out by name. The state is under no obligation to do even offer any plea deal at all and they are the master of their offer with no legal obstacle to getting creative with a condition narrowly tailored to the circumstances like this, so if Nick's professed love for April is more important than avoiding trial, he's free to take it or leav
Unless April is actually his supplier, there is not even a connection btw her and the fact that he had a mountain of cocaine in his bddroom.
And if the concern is "ooh, yes, it's April who's the biggest danger to the children" (not), a better-tailored condition would be she can't come to the house, not that they can't be in contact (way overreaching, imo). She's not even convicted of anything (except a speeding ticket, thanks Nick).