Interview that Ive done with a journalist from Florida. He emailed me the transcript of the interview. Will be published in GQ Magazine. Jason Meyers interviews Kirk Menard, private investigator and Managing Partner of Advanced Investigative Technologies, LLC centered in a small town in Louisiana named Crowley. Kirk is both interesting and controversial, when he reluctantly agreed to accept a case assignment on a serial murder case in the neighboring small town of Jennings, Louisiana. Kirk considers himself and his investigators’ the Last Line of Defense for his clients’. Kirk is licensed by the State Board of Private Investigator Examiners and is a certified instructor of the 40 hour course private investigator course and instructs at Louisiana State University in Eunice. Kirk specializes in most areas of investigations, more specifically child custody, self-defense and the controversial “Stand Your Ground” laws. In December of 2010, Jason Meyers attempted to interview Kirk but he refused. When Jason Meyers published “Investigating the Investigator” (December 10, 2009), Kirk did not participate in the publication. Kirk Menard. Now, has agreed to an in-depth interview with Jason Meyers. Meyers: Kirk, thanks for agreeing to an interview, we have spoke on the phone for hours over the past few years but you never would agree to an interview so again, thank you for allowing me this opportunity. And I would just like to say wow, I guess it’s ironic that we scheduled our meeting the day after the no true bill in the Michael Brown case to discuss among other topics, the Stand Your Ground law. Menard: Well, Jason, you wouldn’t stop calling so I figured either punch you in the mouth or give you an interview so here we are. (Laughs) Meyers: By the way, before I forget, I am writing an investigative article in the recent story about ISIS, and while I was in Miami questioning members of Immigration and Custom Enforcement, one of the agents learned that I was coming to Louisiana for an interview with an investigator and when I mentioned Kirk Menard, he immediately said to tell you hello and stated you and him were close friends. Seems anywhere I go somebody somewhere has heard of you. Menard: I know who you are speaking of Jason and yes we are close friends and speak almost daily. Glad you were able to meet him. Meyers: Kirk, ironically, you specialize in self-defense and Stand Your Ground cases, and now, your daughter is incarcerated for what is claimed self-defense or as the news articles I was able to locate, Stand Your Ground, using her attorney’s words. The booking photograph is worth a thousand words and when I cover jury trials, photographs are very persuasive to a jury. Menard: Come on Jason, we’ve discussed this over the phone, I will not discuss the details of my daughter’s case. I retained her an attorney that I feel comfortable with her attorney, Ric Oustalet and I’ll say his name for the record because I believe he deserves credit for agreeing to accept the case and believing that what he is doing is right and in the interest of justice. In fact, we’re becoming friends and speak often. Meyers: Ok Kirk, fair enough. I’ve obtained records where you have testified as an expert witness in several self-defense and Stand Your Ground cases in Louisiana courts which is premised on investigative techniques and methodology. In one case, you’ve advised and assisted a client that killed one person and injured two others in self-defense and Stand Your Ground cases and that individual was not charged. Now, according to court documents he is facing charges again in a Louisiana court for injuring someone with a bow and arrow and I understand you were once again retained in his case and you are again claiming self-defense. Can you explain to me the difference, if there is one, between self-defense and Stand Your Ground? Menard: The only difference Jason is the duty to retreat. Stand Your Ground laws are basically types of self-defense. Both describe the circumstances in which you are allowed to respond with violence in response to a physical threat, and that threat may be real or perceived, and with stand your ground laws being less restrictive with regards to your duty to retreat if possible. Louisiana statutes do not require a person to retreat as long as they were not the aggressor, and were in a place where they had permission to be, and that could be a street corner. When I think of self-defense, I think that the confrontation had already begun and a person is already being attacked and then uses reasonable force, perhaps deadly, to defend themselves. When I think of Stand Your Ground, I think of someone being threatened with death or great bodily injury, and the person that is being threatened stands their ground and if the threat becomes real, then the person that is being threatened uses force, sometimes deadly, to prevent harm to themselves. And it should be noted that self-defense also applies to others, where if you witness someone being attacked, you may use whatever force necessary to prevent the attack, and that may require deadly force. Meyers: What about the overzealous prosecutors that has the dilemma of someone claiming self-defense but still prosecute? Recently, a case in New York held a man that I thought acted in self-defense but he was charged with murder. Menard: Prosecutors must be careful when agreeing to prosecute someone that claims self-defense or a Stand Your Ground case because by prosecuting someone that was acting in self-defense or standing their ground, then they are sending a message that you do not have a right to defend yourself or stand your ground. The prosecutors send an innocent person to jail because they were in the act of defending themselves or standing their ground and others will be discouraged from using self-defense or standing their ground for fear of prosecution. Prosecutors must be one hundred percent positive the case was not self-defense or Stand Your Ground before agreeing to prosecute or they are sending the wrong message to the public. The law does not hold someone criminally liable for defending themselves or standing their ground. It’s been my experience that prosecutors cave in to the pressure of family members that lost a loved one because their loved one was the aggressor and someone defended themselves against that aggressor. Meyers: Kirk, Zimmerman, was he guilty or not guilty in your opinion? Menard: Jason, it’s my understanding that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was not used in the Zimmerman case but was a self-defense issue and if the facts that were articulated in that case were true and correct then yes, Zimmerman was not guilty by defending himself. Meyers: Law enforcement officers use deadly force much of the time. Yet, most of their shootings result as a justified defense. Should they receive special treatment “just because” they are law enforcement officers? Menard: No they shouldn’t. Any time a LEO uses deadly force or for that matter, discharges their weapon in the line of duty, an independent investigation usually follows but how objective is that investigation is anyone’s guess so it does ask the question, if it was a regular Joe Blow that kills someone in the same situation as a LEO, would the result be the same? Would the regular Joe Blow be cleared as the LEO would or would he be charged and the LEO released from criminal liability? Meyers: Excellent point Kirk. Do you believe that individuals use self-defense as a way out of a murder charge? Menard: I would say some do and it is up to forensics, detectives and the prosecutors to prove that it was not self-defense and if it was not self-defense then a thorough investigation will reveal that it was not self-defense. The facts of the case will tell you whether it was self-defense or not. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was not self-defense. Some times that is a heavy burden to overcome when there is little or no witnesses. Meyers: Many investigators’ defer self-defense, justifiable homicide or Stand Your Ground questions to you but that’s not all, not only do defense attorneys utilize your services in these cases but prosecutors as well, which I find unusual, as was the case when you testified in two unrelated cases in Houma, Louisiana; why is that? Menard: Again, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it was not self-defense and I will be called to testify as an expert witness in these cases for the prosecution if there is any doubt that it was not self-defense, justifiable homicide or Stand Your Ground. Meyers: What type of testimony do you provide for the prosecution in these cases? Menard: It’s very complex Jason and usually begins with a review of the case file. After reviewing the case file, I will meet with the prosecution and give my interpretation of the case based on the evidence, or lack thereof, and the facts of the case. If I determine it was self-defense, justifiable homicide or Stand Your Ground, the case will either be dismissed by the prosecutor or they may want a Grand Jury to hear and decide the issue and I will be subpoenaed to explain the self-defense, justifiable homicide or Stand Your Ground theories to the Grand Jury, then I will articulate the facts and evidence that I find in my experience in conducting an investigation in these cases. I review the police investigation, was it thorough? Was every hypothesis of innocence presumed? The character of the deceased, injured or aggressor, which is very important in these cases? The character, reputation of the defendant, size of defendant versus that of the aggressor, weapon used, pictures, photographs, interrogation, the experience of the law enforcement in investigating these type of cases and so forth. If the Grand Jury indicts then we proceed to trial and I will be subpoenaed to testify before a jury and explain everything all over again. Meyers: Prosecutors will often allow a Grand Jury to decide if a case was self-defense. Research suggests that this case be arbitrarily distributed since someone in a similar situation may not be indicted and some may be indicted. How can the law be arbitrarily applied to each individual that claims self-defense or Stand Your Ground? Menard: My warning to prosecutors, even the ones I often work for is to be careful. Prosecuting someone that has a clear case of self-defense, justifiable homicide or Stand Your Ground can easily send a message that you do not have a right to defend yourself, even in your own home. Many may fear that if they defend themselves, their family and loved ones, that they will be arrested and charged, taken away from their families, so they may hesitate to defend themselves, even though the law clearly allows them to defend themselves. The law must be applied evenly to each individual otherwise, there would be a serious injustice not only to the defendant, but society as a whole because you are sending a message that you defend yourself, your family, loved ones or another person from physical harm or death and you will go to jail and have to prove your innocence, which is not the intent of the legal system. No one should have to ever proof their innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt. So many may not act or hesitate when faced in a situation and be seriously hurt or killed. Would a prosecutor want that on their conscious? Meyers: Kirk, one such case I’ve research was in neighboring parish St. Landry where the individual charged was Jason Rolls. The Grand Jury indicted him for killing his new wife’s ex-husband after he entered their home and was told to leave. The prosecution chose to proceed with the case, which ended in an acquittal by a jury. Have you followed that case? If so, what is your interpretation of the case? Menard: I’ve briefly followed the case but from what I understand of the evidence and facts of the case is that here you have an Army Sergeant, newly married, a day after his marriage I believe, and the ex-husband of the new wife enters the home and assaults the wife, the ex-husband was a considerable size larger than the new husband, Mr. Rolls. This case should have never proceed to trial and the Grand Jury apparently did not have all the facts and/or evidence and apparently did not know or understand the self-defense, justifiable homicide, or Stand Your Ground laws and it’s apparent the prosecutor persuaded the Grand Jury to indict. This was clearly a case of self-defense under the Stand Your Ground doctrine and the jury at trial made the correct decision. Mr. Rolls was acquitted of the charges. Bear in mind that there is a statute in Louisiana that covers reasonable force in self-defense of others. Meyers: If you had been hired by prosecution in the Jason Rolls case, what would have been your advice to the prosecutor? Menard: I would have noticed that this was clearly a case of self-defense and that this case should be dismissed. In the “Rolls” case, the police chief documented in his investigative report the size of the aggressor and the size of Mr. Rolls. This was a case that should have never proceeded to trial and three years of a man’s life is gone because he had to stand trial on frivolous charges brought about by an overzealous prosecutor that apparently was not experienced in self-defense cases. Meyers: Can you explain why Grand Juries indict and trial juries acquit in some cases? Menard: Grand Juries are meant to be independent bodies but most, if not all, are controlled by the prosecutor and the prosecutor can present any evidence and any fact he chooses before the Grand Jury and often, the defendant will never testify before a Grand Jury. A prosecutor can very easily have a Grand Jury indict anyone. However, before a jury at trial, the defense attorney is allowed to present his evidence and facts and the outcome may be different, and many times, is different in a jury trial. A Grand Jury only determines if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial but does not determine the merits of the case. A trial jury determines the merits of the case and in clear cases of self-defense, many times, a jury will acquit a person. If a person that has a clear case of self-defense is found guilty, then usually an appellate court will usually reverse the conviction or remand for a lesser included charge such as negligent homicide. Meyers: Kirk, what is the most challenging issue in Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense cases? Menard: Politics. Meyers: Explain please. Menard: Unfortunately, in Stand Your Ground cases you have an aggressor that is usually seriously and or killed because someone defended themselves from an attack. The aggressor has a family and regardless of the issues the family will to turn the aggressor into the victim. It does not matter that the aggressor threatened or assaulted the victim, the family will believe that their family member should not have been injured or killed. Pressure is placed on the prosecutors by the family members of the aggressor and the defendant is forced to defend themselves at trial. Mostly all Stand Your Ground cases go to trial unless a prosecutor knows and understands the Stand Your Ground law as well as self-defense laws or the aggressor does not have a family. Undue pressure from family members on the prosecutor is certainly a challenging issue because the family members that no matter what, they’re family member should not have been seriously injured or killed, regardless if it was an act of self-defense. Suddenly, the aggressor becomes a saint, angel or whatever and never does or did anything wrong. Again, prosecutors that cave into pressure from family members of a case that is self-defense send a strong message that if you defend yourself you will be arrested and prosecuted and I don’t believe that is a safe message to send to society. Meyers: Let’s change the subject for a moment, you are approved to instruct the forty hour private investigator course, correct? Menard: Yes that is correct. Meyers: I am looking at a letter from the State Board of Private Investigator Examiners from 2009 that grants you the authority to instruct the forty hour course. I also reviewed the forty hour manual and it’s not just private investigation that is instructed, the manual appears as a pre-law or law school manual because in the forty hour manual are entire chapters on civil law, criminal law, constitutional law as well as federal law. Interesting, you are allowed to instruct law without having a law degree, how is that possible? Menard: Instructors for the forty hour private investigators are carefully screened and selected based on their experience level, teaching experience, legal experience and knowledge. The State legislators, through the State Board of Private Investigator Examiners, allow us to instruct various subjects, including the law as it pertains to civil, criminal, constitutional and federal law, including administrative law. It goes to say that how can we effectively perform our job if we don’t know the law. Same with law enforcement, how can they enforce the law without knowing the law. We’ve all heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse and we are all presumed to know the law. We are basically instructing, as the legislators dictate, what each and every citizen should already know. The catch isn’t instructing the law, it’s interpreting the law through common law principles and established precedent, such as case law and judge-made law. We have to know the law to protect our clients. Meyers: Very interesting. If you remember when I published the article “Investigating the Investigator,” I interviewed one of your clients that is an attorney with over thirty years’ experience that stated that he felt you should be lawyer because of the vast knowledge that you have of the law. I remember one statement he made that I didn’t publish was that you research case law eighteen hours a day. How do you find the time? Menard: You’re correct. I am on the road a lot but thanks to modern technology such as air cards I usually have my laptop with me in my vehicle and I research. I find case law very interesting. Meyers: So here’s a tougher question but I believe it applies. The same client believed that you would be a great attorney so why haven’t you pursued a law degree? Menard: I really don’t know Jason. The only link I can use in my defense is that I began having children and settling down at an early age. Meyers: A former Chief Justice of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal made a statement to the effect that when you were going an issue in Evangeline Parish that he would pay for you to go to law school or find the resources that would allow you to go to law school. Of course, the issue in Evangeline Parish he is speaking of is when you’ve had a highly publicized state district judge censored by the Louisiana Supreme Court for draconian style law by forcing defendants’ to trial at their arraignments. So even with his offer, you still refused? Menard: Yes and again, my only defense is having children at an early age and it just wasn’t on my agenda at that time. The former Chief Justice you are referring to….him and I are still great friends and we still communicate almost daily to this day. The law is something I can speak about every day for hours. It’s what I love and what I do. Meyers: Speaking of resources and friends, I was in the Florida airport to fly to Louisiana to interview you and I was wearing my press badge. Sitting next to me was an individual wearing a Homeland Security jacket and I often question members of Homeland Security about the current immigration issues, ISIL and other issues that affect the Country. While waiting for our flights, we began communicating and he asked me where I was flying and I informed him I was flying to Louisiana to question and private investigator and he asked me who and when I mentioned your name he was surprised and stated that he knew you very well. Surprised, I asked him what he knew about you and he stated that you were a friend and that your agency is part of the Central Contractor Registry and that you and he communicate frequently. I just found it coincidental that someone in Florida in an airport, being a high ranking official with Homeland Security, and considering that your clients’ inform me of “resources you have that would make Homeland Security jealous” that I would communicate with someone in an airport from Homeland Security that knew you personally. He did say to tell you hello. About your resources, as one client informs us, “you can find anything on anyone, even under a mountain”, what’s the secret to your success in that area? Menard: I know who you are speaking of from Homeland Security but he is actually part of Immigration and Custom Enforcement known as ICE and we are friends, I’m very surprised you ran into him in an airport. As far as my resources and my secrets, I can’t divulge. I do have access to databases and sources that the general public does not have access to and yes we are part of the Central Contractor Registry which means that we can contract to the federal government and are on their vendor list. Meyers: Do you contract with Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or other federal agency? Menard: Sorry Jason. Nice try. Client confidentiality prohibits me from disclosing my clients. I can’t discuss who we contract with except to say that we are part of the Central Contractor Registry. Meyers: Your colleagues in the private investigation industry have a tremendous amount of respect for you. When I was writing the article “Investigating the Investigator,” others in the industry referred to you that would accept cases that nobody else wanted, the most difficult cases and your attorney clients informed me that you are not afraid of lawyers, prosecutors or judges and that you have no problem with stating when an attorney, prosecutor or judge is wrong and on at least a couple of occasions, stated a judge is wrong is open court and was almost charged with contempt of court. One time you were charged with contempt of court and I’m holding an unpublished opinion from a court of appeal that overturned a contempt order against you that stated “the investigator stated his opinion, and while frowned upon, did not intentionally commit any discord in a court of law.” Menard: I remember that case. It was an emotionally charged case in which child custody and child abuse was the main issues. The judge made a ruling that I strongly disagreed with and I had to speak up because the judge did not follow the law in the case. I drafted an emergency Writ order for an expedient ruling from the Court of Appeal and within 12 hours the judges’ ruling finding me in contempt was overturned. I was never sentenced and it was a civil contempt order which would have resulted in a fine only. Meyers: Kirk, you’re known for applying for orders from federal court and receiving them. Once you’ve received an order from a federal judge preventing a state court district judge from acting on a divorce case. You’ve claimed constitutional grounds and the order was granted and eventually overturned but you’ve still received the order. How is it that you are able to do something that many attorneys cannot or will not do? Menard: Well, it’s like I instruct in my private investigation courses. Knowledge is power and when you have knowledge of the law then encounters with lawyers, judges, prosecutors and law enforcement becomes easier because you then have the confidence to successful handle such encounters and once someone such as law enforcement realizes you have knowledge of the law, things almost always go your way. Meyers: Videotaping has become a sensitive subject lately while law enforcement continues to arrest citizens for videotaping their actions. What comment can you make about the legality of videotaping law enforcement. Menard: You can videotape anyone, anywhere you have a permissible place to be but as with any law, there are exceptions. For instance, you cannot enter a law enforcement officer’s investigative scene or perimeter and video but you can maintain a safe distance and videotape and that is not illegal. Local judges and perhaps state judges may find that the person videotaping guilty but on appeal it’ll be overturned. And yes, it is a first amendment right, freedom of expression and freedom to petition the government of redress by videotaping. It’s also placing an accountability level with law enforcement that they should and will be held accountable for their actions should they step over the line. Every person in every job has accountability, why should law enforcement, prosecutors or judges not be held accountable in their jobs? Don’t do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about, isn’t that logical? Meyers: I suppose. Like your clients, I will defer to your expertise on that question. (Laughing) Meyers: Kirk you accept cases of significant magnitude like unsolved cases one case in particular is the case that is dubbed the “Jeff Davis 8. What is the current status of that case? Menard: Status quo (laughing).Actually, I’m still receiving tips but they are far and few in between. I still turn all tips over to the task force and law enforcement. It will take a while to solve this case but sooner or later it’ll be solved. The problem lies with the former administration and the collection of evidence so making an arrest and obtaining a conviction is two separate issues that law enforcement and the prosecutors have to face and when presented to a jury, may present a very difficult challenge. Meyers: You specialize in child custody cases, is that correct? Menard: Yes I do, among other areas of investigations. Meyers: I would imagine that those are emotionally charged cases. What evidence is needed when conducting a child custody case? Menard: Each case is different, Jason. It depends on the circumstances. Many times a client will walk in and say they want custody of their kids but adamantly admit that the other parent is an excellent mother or father and we sometimes turn down child custody cases because of that. I spend countless hours performing case law research on each child custody case I accept. I want to know the evidence needed based on the circumstances of each individual case. For instance, in abuse cases we often times conduct surveillance on how the parent or parents treat a child in public such as hollering, slapping, hitting, shaking and for neglect cases leaving the child alone for extended periods of time, leaving young child alone if the vehicle running while the parent or parents get down at a store, the type of neighborhood the parents live in and so forth. It’s based on a case by case basis and no one case is the same as another case. Meyers: Let’s discuss law enforcement. In your profession as a private investigator I’m sure you are often confronted by law enforcement while you or your investigators’ are working in the field. What are some of those issues? Menard: The most we interact with law enforcement in the field is when someone calls law enforcement that a strange vehicle is parked on the side of the road or in a parking lot. Law enforcement arrives on the scene, requests identification and asks what we are doing. Normally, as a courtesy, we explain we are private investigators working on a case. The usual scenario is you need to check in with law enforcement when you come to town to work a case. First of all, there is no state law that requires that we check in with law enforcement to work a case in any town or municipality. The legislators attempted to pass the law that private investigators check in but it failed. Secondly, my investigators are instructed that they do not leave a surveillance under any circumstances and if they are approached by law enforcement to leave a surveillance to go check in then they are to notify me or my business partner immediately and under no circumstances, even if directed by law enforcement, are they to leave a surveillance. If our investigators’ are arrested for refusing to leave a surveillance to check in with law enforcement, we will bail them out of jail and immediately file suit. The case that supports our position is Trahan versus the City of Scott, 00-1246 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/14/01). In that case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the investigator and stated verbatim that law enforcement officials are not authorized to stop an individual and question them at all unless, as clearly set forth in art. 215.1, they reasonably suspect the individual “is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense ․” If my investigators’ are in a permissible place such as a public parking lot or even on the side of the road, they are in a permissible place and law enforcement cannot interfere. If we do check in, we do so as a courtesy and nothing more. We do have a team of attorneys that are prepared to litigate law enforcement pulling our investigators off of a surveillance to go check in or arresting our investigators for remaining after forbidden and we’ll win such a case. Meyers: What other issues do you or your investigators’ have in the field regarding law enforcement? Menard: Usually, they will persist in knowing who we are watching and of course our response is we can’t tell you that, it is confidential. After checking our identification they will usually drive away. I am not anti-law enforcement, but I am against law enforcement officers that do not know the law and use their badge as a sword and a shield. As in any job, you have good ones and you have bad ones and you can usually tell when you interact with a police officer which ones are bad. I have several friends that are in law enforcement and several investigators that still work for law enforcement agencies. Meyers: Kirk this has been a great interview and thank you for your time. You’ve shed a lot of light on what you do and why you are so successful and it’s safe to say your clients are correct when they say you know the law better than most attorneys. I wish you the best of luck in the future, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family. Keep up the good fight, Kirk, I know there are plenty of people out there counting on you. Menard: Thanks Jason, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family as well and keep in touch. Let me know how the weather is when you return to Florida (Laughing).
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:00:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015