We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3
SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
JULIET YACKEL ON BEHALF OF Cause No.
RODNEY BERGET,
Petitioner, AFFIDAVIT OF RODNEY BERGET
v.
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS and DENNY
KAEMINGK, SECRETARY,
SOUTH DAKOA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA )
:Ss
COUNTY OF MINNEHAHA)
Rodney Berget, being first duly sworn, states:
1. That he is a death row prisoner in the South Dakota State Penitentiary,
scheduled for execution on Monday, October 29, 2018.
2. That he is aware that Juliet Yackel has filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition or for
Other Appropriate Relief with the South Dakota Supreme Court on October 26,
2018, purportedly on his behalf.
3. That he knows Ms. Yackel and has spoken to her in her role of mitigation
specialist, but he has not authorized her to submit anything to the court on his
behalf. 4. That he last met with Juliet Yackel on August 27, 2018, at which time he told her
that he no longer wished to contest the execution. He also refused to sign a
document she had prepared relative to further court action
5. That on October 2, 2018, Ms. Yackel tried to visit him, and he refused that visit.
6. That according to Ms. Yackel's Petition, a guardian ad litem is to be appointed
only for an “incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action.”
7. That he has been and continues to be represented by Jeff Larson, his counsel of
choice in this matter. He has also been represented by independent review
counsel, Eric Schulte, who continues to keep in contact with him.
8. That he has met with Mr. Larson on the average of once every three weeks for
the past seven years as well as meetings with other members of the defense
team on the average of at least two more times every month.
9. That he indicated to both counsel in July, 2016, that he wished to discontinue his
habeas litigation. He has consistently repeated that wish since that time, even
though Mr. Schulte continued to litigate the intellectual disability claim that he felt
he was ethically obligated to pursue.
10. That both counsel have repeatedly advised him that he has meritorious legal
issues to pursue, but he has consistently told them he did not want to continue
the fight in court.
11. That he does not need a guardian ad litem because he is presently represented
by counsel.
12. That it continues to be his desire, against the legal advice of counsel to go
forward with the scheduled execution. 13. That he requests the South Dakota Supreme Court to dismiss Ms. Yackel's
Petition.
Dated this 27" day of October, 2018.
My commission expires
02-0 R000 %, ORS
“%
Mana
Lonnie Joe Dutton v. John N. Brown and The Attorney General of The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae, 812 F.2d 593, 10th Cir. (1987)
Robert William Despain v. Duane Shillinger, Warden of The Wyoming State Penitentiary and The Attorney General of The State of Wyoming, 25 F.3d 1056, 10th Cir. (1994)
