STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, COUNTY OF CASS

IN DISTRICT COURT, EAST CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State of North Dakota, )

)
Plaintiff, ) MOTION/HEARING
vs. )
) Case Number 09-2023-CR-06109
Tristan Lee Amyotte, )
)
Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHERIE L. CLARK, DISTRICT JUDGE
Cass County Courthouse
Fargo, North Dakota
July 11, 2024

A P P E A R A N C E S

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR INTERESTED PARTY:

Ethan R. Lee Katie L. Carpenter
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
Cass County Courthouse Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 2806 500 North Ninth Street
Fargo, ND 58108-2806 Bismarck, ND 58501-4509

FOR DEFENDANT:
Tanya Johnson Martinez
Attorney at Law
3332 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 2B
Fargo, ND 58103

RECORDED BY: Vanessa Lystad

TRANSCRIBED BY:
Eryn Lutjens, ND-CR/T
Electronic Court Recorder
Cass County Courthouse
P.O. Box 2806
Fargo, ND 58108

1
1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (The before-entitled matter came on for hearing

3 before the Court, the Honorable Cherie L. Clark, District

4 Judge, presiding, commencing at 1:35 p.m. on July 11, 2024, in

5 the Cass County Courthouse in Fargo, North Dakota. Present in

6 court was Ethan R. Lee of Fargo, North Dakota, representing the

7 plaintiff, State of North Dakota. Present by reliable

8 electronic means (Zoom) were Tanya Johnson Martinez of Fargo,

9 North Dakota, representing the defendant, Tristan Lee Amyotte;

10 and Katie L. Carpenter of Bismarck, North Dakota, representing

11 the interested party, North Dakota Department of Health and

12 Human Services.)

13 THE COURT: The Court’s going to call 2023-CR-6109.

14 This is the time and place set for a motion hearing.

15 Present in the courtroom is Mr. Lee. Present via the

16 Zoom application is Ms. Carpenter.

17 The best I can tell, she’s with the Department of

18 Human Services. I’m not sure if she has standing, but she’s

19 put in a notice of appearance.

20 Ms. Martinez represents the defendant. The defendant

21 is not present. Mr. Lee, again, is present in the courtroom.

22 The Court is going to make the finding that what we

23 are talking about today is not an essential part of the

24 criminal case, so the defendant’s presence is not necessary.

25 Do you agree, Ms. Martinez?

Page 2
1 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: Yes, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Do you agree, Mr. Lee?

3 MR. LEE: Yes.

4 THE COURT: How this came about is I got a call from

5 scheduling yesterday indicating that somebody wanted to talk to

6 me from the AG’s Office. I then wanted a phone conference from

7 the AG’s Office; I agreed to that because they said it was an

8 emergency and time-sensitive -- didn’t know what it was about.

9 I then received the notice of how it was going to be

10 effectuated. I responded in an email that said, of course, all

11 parties were going to be notified, and I was informed that the

12 parties weren’t necessary to be at this criminal case. That

13 worried me a bit, so I set this on for a hearing; all parties

14 were notified, and here we are.

15 I did receive a motion this morning, which was, I

16 guess, done last night. The motion indicates that somehow the

17 criminal statutes and rules of criminal procedure don’t apply,

18 and I have no authority, apparently, to send defendants to the

19 State Hospital -- only under chapter 25 -- that’s the substance

20 of the order.

21 Ms. Carpenter, you -- I’m not indicating my ruling at

22 all on if you even have standing to appear in this case, but I

23 will let you be heard.

24 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you, Judge Clark.

25 I apologize if there was any confusion with the

Page 3
1 hearing time. When my assistant had called she had merely

2 called to inquire about your calendar, so I apologize if there

3 was any confusion. We were merely attempting to see, prior to

4 filing our motion, if you had any availability for a hearing on

5 your calendar.

6 I don’t know who said that the parties weren’t

7 required, but that’s certainly not my understanding by any

8 means. We never would have wanted the defense counsel or the

9 prosecutor to be out of this process.

10 My only concern, as the Department, is the fact that

11 the order specifies the type of treatment that the defendant

12 must have and the length of time that the defendant must have.

13 According to the Department, the defendant does not meet the

14 requirements for that particular type of treatment, much less

15 for that type of treatment for that length of time. The

16 Department is not saying that he doesn’t need treatment

17 necessarily, but that the process for him to receive treatment

18 is different and that he would need to have an assessment done

19 at his regional human service center first prior to any --

20 THE COURT: Ms. Carpenter, I know that you are pretty

21 new here. Do you know that our current southeast department --

22 human service center does not screen? They do not have the

23 ability to do a chemical dependency evaluation. They are

24 limited in the amount of mental health evaluations they do.

25 They literally do not do chemical dependency evaluations.

Page 4
1 MS. CARPENTER: My understanding from the Department

2 is that he would have -- and the statute is that he would have

3 to go see the Southeast Human Service Center first.

4 THE COURT: They don’t do them. That’s not possible

5 in Fargo.

6 MS. CARPENTER: Well, my understanding, though, the

7 inpatient treatment that he had been sentenced to is

8 essentially a detox program. And, right now, my understanding

9 is that the defendant is not in need of detox but rather is in

10 need of potential other services that aren’t able to be

11 provided through that inpatient service program. There’s also

12 not treatments available to him at the State Hospital through

13 the inpatient service -- through inpatient.

14 THE COURT: Okay. Please continue. I didn’t mean to

15 -- you are -- my anger is not directed to you in the least bit,

16 and I’m just so frustrated because these -- the human service

17 centers aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do, the State

18 Hospital isn’t doing what they’re supposed to do. I understand

19 it’s because of money constraints. Not my problem, in my

20 opinion, frankly. I have the authority to send people there;

21 they need chemical dependency and mental health treatment.

22 Please continue with your argument, but that’s where

23 I am coming from, ma’am.

24 MS. CARPENTER: Sure. Why -- I can understand the

25 frustration. I think it’s frustrating for us all. You know,

Page 5
1 there’s a very large influx of people needing mental health

2 treatment, whether that’s drug and alcohol treatment, whether

3 that’s mental health treatment; I completely understand the

4 frustration, and I know it’s frustrating for the Department as

5 well.

6 The waitlist for the State Hospital for inpatient

7 treatment is quite large at this point in time, and a large

8 concern about the defendant being sentenced to inpatient

9 treatment is he is not going to be receiving services that are

10 useful to him. And instead, others who are waitlisted will not

11 be able to have that treatment.

12 THE COURT: Mr. Lee, do you have anything to say?

13 MR. LEE: Nothing that hasn’t been said, no.

14 THE COURT: Do you take a position?

15 MR. LEE: The State’s position is that that program

16 is -- or that the Court is supposed to order, through Southeast

17 Human Service Center, whether -- I understand the Court’s

18 frustration with that.

19 THE COURT: I don’t know what you mean through the

20 Southeast Human Service Center. Are you familiar -- first --

21 okay. I’ll take your position, but then, Ms. Martinez --

22 MR. LEE: Okay.

23 THE COURT: -- do you have anything to say?

24 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: Your Honor, I would confirm

25 that my clients that are in custody do not get the assessments

Page 6
1 that they need.

2 THE COURT: Do they get the treatment that they need,

3 Ms. Martinez?

4 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: There is no treatment

5 available for them in the Cass County Jail, and as of right

6 now, ShareHouse maybe will screen them by the phone, but they

7 change their mind every other week depending on their volume.

8 So they’re --

9 THE COURT: Is there --

10 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: These people are --

11 THE COURT: But ShareHouse isn’t the human service

12 center. Are they receiving any services through the human

13 service center?

14 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: While in custody?

15 THE COURT: While in custody.

16 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: I’m trying to think. I think

17 I’ve maybe had one client that had already established a

18 relationship, but the response was once he gets out, he will

19 have housing ready for him.

20 THE COURT: But I’m talking about chemical dependency

21 services.

22 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: No, not that I am aware of.

23 None of my clients have received chemical dependency treatment

24 in Cass County Jail. It’s not available.

25 THE COURT: And can you do assessments through

Page 7
1 Southeast for chemical --

2 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: Southeast --

3 THE COURT: -- dependency?

4 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: No. No. Southeast won’t

5 respond to us. That’s why we turn to a private place,

6 ShareHouse, but now they have become overwhelmed. And

7 Southeast has contracted with ShareHouse before to do this,

8 just like they used to contract with them to do drug court --

9 same with Prairie. Southeast, in our jurisdiction, in my

10 experience over the past 20 years, contracts it out to private

11 parties, which is why we are so familiar with them.

12 THE COURT: All right. Anything else you want to

13 tell me, Ms. Carpenter?

14 MS. CARPENTER: The only thing is we did send -- we

15 did file a proposed order shortly before the hearing. I’m not

16 sure if it’s -- if you’ve even seen it yet. I had heard just

17 earlier today that that was your standard practice -- that you

18 prefer to have a proposed order, so we prepared one.

19 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Carpenter.

20 Here’s what I am going to say. We are -- we are at a

21 crisis situation in Cass County. I have worked in public

22 service since 2003 here. I have never seen such a mental

23 health crisis and a chemical dependency crisis in this county

24 and in the state.

25 I can tell you today, in custody, we had three people

Page 8
1 that appeared from their bed because they are too sick to come

2 to the in-custody room with withdrawing from Fentanyl and/or

3 Psychosis from chemical dependency use. That’s just today.

4 And this was a low number today; usually, it’s six or seven

5 people that are in bed because they are too sick, they’re

6 withdrawing, they’re throwing up, they are not able to make it

7 to the ITV room so I can literally arraign them.

8 I have listened to the DOCR tell us that we are not

9 -- we shouldn’t -- and the research suggests that we should not

10 send them to jail; we should not send them to the DOCR because

11 they have chemical dependency issues and mental health issues.

12 I’ve been told that the proper thing to do is get them

13 treatment. Treatment should be obtained through the state

14 agencies in the criminal justice system.

15 Southeast will not even assess them, much less treat

16 them. I am left with both hands tied behind my back and people

17 sick and dying in my county because they cannot access the

18 mental health and the chemical dependency treatment that they

19 need to live.

20 Under North Dakota Criminal Rule of Procedure

21 32(f)(1), the defendant may be admitted to bail pending the

22 hearing on a petition to revoke.

23 Under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure

24 46(a)(2)(J), I may impose any release condition that will

25 reasonably ensure an appearance including but not limited to

Page 9
1 the defendant undergoing available medical, psychiatric,

2 chemical dependency treatment and to remain in the specific

3 institution if required for that purpose.

4 I am making a finding that the North Dakota State

5 Hospital both provide mental health treatment and chemical

6 dependency treatment. They are statutorily required to do so.

7 Under 12.1-32-02(1)(g), it allows commitment in the

8 criminal justice system -- not under title 25 -- it allows

9 commitment to an appropriate licensed public or private

10 institution for treatment of alcoholism, drug addiction, or

11 mental disease or defect as part of a sentence.

12 Under 12.1-32-02(g), a court may, prior to the

13 disposition of sentencing, order a defendant committed to an

14 appropriate licensed public or private institution for

15 treatment up to 30 days -- up to 30 days -- and I only did 15

16 here -- and to extend that to 60 days if necessary.

17 Under 12.1-32-07(g), the court, upon notice to the

18 probationer and with good cause, may modify or enlarge

19 probation condition for treatment purposes.

20 Under 12.1-32-07(4)(b), the court may impose

21 probation conditions it deems appropriate, including undergo

22 available medical or psychiatric treatment and remain in that

23 institution as required for that specific purpose.

24 This defendant showed up as -- at a revocation

25 proceeding because he failed to show up for my diagnostic

Page 10
1 assessment at Southeast to do mental health and chemical

2 dependency evaluation, not to mention that I have been fighting

3 or disagreeing with Southeast for -- remind me, Ms. Martinez,

4 has it been about six months now to get them to do it?

5 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: Yeah, at least.

6 THE COURT: For about the last six months, to get

7 them to do the treatment that they need. He shows up not doing

8 those two evaluations, he then doesn’t show up for probation,

9 so I can either: A, put him in jail when the only thing he

10 needs is treatment, or two, send him to prison after the

11 revocation when the only thing he needs is treatment, or I can

12 use the statutes that I just outlined to send him to an

13 appropriate place that is statutorily required to treat him for

14 medical -- for mental health and chemical dependency issues.

15 That is what I have chosen to do. That will continue

16 to be what I have chosen to do.

17 I did it for 15 days. Under my reading of the rules,

18 I can do it up to 60 days. I did not do that.

19 I then said after 15 days, if he is stable both

20 psychiatrically and has some chemical dependency issues

21 underhand and has had the evaluations, he can be transported

22 back to the Cass County detention facility.

23 And, Ms. Carpenter, although I am upset, it has

24 nothing to do with you. I am just frustrated beyond belief

25 that I cannot get help for these people when they are literally

Page 11
1 dying in Cass County.

2 That is the ruling of the Court.

3 Anything else for the record, Ms. Martinez?

4 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

5 THE COURT: Mr. Lee.

6 MR. LEE: No, Judge. Thank you.

7 THE COURT: Ms. Carpenter.

8 And I saw -- you’re getting an end that you don’t

9 deserve, but I am frustrated beyond belief, and I want -- we

10 need -- I am crying for, I am begging for services.

11 I urge you to appeal this decision. Let’s bring it

12 to the Supreme Court. Let’s bring it to the people of North

13 Dakota because we need to treat people, and we need to do it

14 now.

15 In this matter, we are adjourned.

16 MR. LEE: Thank you.

17 MS. JOHNSON MARTINEZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

18 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you.

19 (WHEREUPON, the above proceedings concluded.)

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 12
 CERTIFICATE OF COURT RECORDER

I, Eryn Lutjens, a duly certified digital electronic

court recorder and transcriber,

DO CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached

typewritten 12 pages contain a true, accurate, and complete

transcript from the electronic sound recording then and there

taken.

Dated at Fargo, North Dakota, this 17th day of July,

2024.

______________________________
Eryn Lutjens, ND CR/T
Electronic Court Recorder

Page 13