Jake Patterson Sentencing: Full Hearing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: I am calling 19 CF 20 state versus Jake Patterson. Mr. Patterson appears in person and with attorneys Richard Jones and Charles Glenn, the state by district attorney, Brian Wright. This is the time scheduled for sentencing. Before we begin, I want to remind everyone that this is an emotional hearing for many reasons and for many people, but this is a court of law. You may hear or see things that are deeply painful or disturbing. However, if you wish to remain in the courtroom, you must maintain decorum. The court will not allow any outbursts, gestures, or behaviors which disrupt the proceedings in any way. I further remind everyone that it is the rule of this court that all remarks must be directed to the court while seated. No one will be allowed to speak to or at counsel, the defendant, the victim or victim's family, nor to the gallery. Mr. Jones, have you been able to review the pre-sentence investigation with your client or Mr. Glenn? Mr. Kahn. Sure. Yes, we have. And does the defense have any corrections to any of the [00:01:54] Speaker 2: factual information? We do not have any factual corrections, but we will take issue with it [00:01:59] Speaker 1: in some part during argument. I understand conclusions, but the facts. All right. Mr. Wright, has the victim's rights law been complied with? Yes, Your Honor. And do you - I have reviewed the written victim impact statements and those contained in the pre-sentence. Do you have any oral victim impact [00:02:17] Speaker 3: statements? Yes, Your Honor. There are six family members who would like to speak. And Attorney Chris Gramstrup, who is the guardian ad litem for Jamie Claus, would like to speak on [00:02:29] Speaker 1: her behalf. Okay. Who do you wish to call first? Sue Allard. Ms. Allard, if you'll come and be seated right next to Mr. Wright, please make sure you speak into the microphone. And if you'd state your full name and spell your last [00:02:47] Sue Ann Allard: name, please. Sue Ann Allard, A-L-L-A-R-D. All right. Go ahead, Ms. Allard. To the defendant, on the morning of October 15th, 2018, I received the worst phone call one could get. The lives of my baby sister, Denise, and her husband, Jim, were brutally taken and their only daughter, Jamie, my beloved niece, was missing. I fell to the ground and screamed. I was hoping I was just waking up from a nightmare. But later to realize it was one I lived for 88 days. My sister and brother-in-law were such loving and giving and beautiful people, only working and living to raise their only beloved daughter. I spent these days and sleepless nights trying to figure out why and how you could so brutally take these lives and kidnap Jamie in a such a horrific way. It was senseless senseless to me. Denise and Jim were a daughter, a son, a sister, a brother, a niece, a nephew, an aunt and uncle. Denise was a loving godmother to children that will miss her more than anything and more. But most of all, a loving mother and father Jamie has lost. Jamie lost everything. She must start over. But she has her loving family behind her. Two people, Denise and Jim, we love with all our hearts were taken from us. We had to go through the motions of planning their funeral without getting the chance to respectfully mourn their loss. Their baby girl was still out there somewhere and we needed to do everything possible to bring her home to us. Denise and Jim would never rest in peace until that happened. She was their world. I needed this girl home. We needed this girl home. My life was ripped apart and shattered into pieces. So much loss. My sister and husband died trying to protect their their family, their family, each other, their daughter. The nightmare of what they went through the early hours of that morning remains in my head every day. I don't want myself, Jamie, most of all, nor my family to fear another day. I don't want another family to go through the nightmare my family has endured. Judge, as I come before you, I ask that you sentence the defendant, defendant maximum sentences on each count in this case. Thank you. Thank you. Next, your honor is Lindsay Smith. Miss Smith, if you'll come and be seated right next to Mr. Wright. And if you state your full name and spell both your first and last name. Lindsay Smith, first name [00:05:53] Lindsay Smith: L-I-N-D-S-E-Y, last name S-M-I-T-H. What would you like to tell me? To the defendant in this case, October 14th was a typical family event with nothing but happiness. Less than 12 hours after, I was woken up with the worst possible news. Two family members deceased and one family member missing. And all of that leads back to you, one extremely terrible person. We spent the next 88 days living in fear, pain, and not knowing what happened to our family. There were so many sleepless nights, always watching our backs and never knowing what to expect next. On the 88th day, we were finally told that Jamie would be coming home. Having Jamie home was the best thing we were so glad that Jamie was home, where she belonged with her family, but you took so much from Jamie. You took her parents, her home, her childhood, and all of her happiness. She had to rebuild her life and start completely over. You took so much from her. You took so much from me. I was so very close to my aunt, and now I won't have her the most important days of my life because of you. One of the most painful things for me to think about is that the last moments of my aunt's life were the worst and scariest moments of her life. No one should leave this earth in such a horrible way. My aunt and uncle were good people. Never deserved to endure the pain that you caused them. The pain and heartache you caused to so many people is truly indescribable. I hope you live the rest of your life dealing with the pain you put my family through. You took so much from our family, but you won't take our happiness anymore. Judge, I ask you to sentence the defendant in this case to the max sentence on each count in this case, so this man never has a chance to hurt someone else like he hurt my family. We ask for justice for Jim, Denise, and Jamie Closs. Thank you. Thank you. [00:07:59] Speaker 3: Your Honor, next is Jennifer Smith. [00:08:04] Speaker 1: Ms. Smith, if you will be seated right next to Mr. Wright. And if you'd state your full name and spell both your first and last name. [00:08:17] Speaker 6: Jennifer Jean Smith, S-M-I-T-H. [00:08:21] Speaker 1: Go ahead. [00:08:24] Speaker 6: To the defendant, you have taken so much away from myself and my family. The horrifying murder of my sister and brother-in-law. Knowing what my sister went through the last minutes of her life, trying to protect Jamie. This doesn't leave my mind. I have terrible nightmares. Jamie was my sister Denise's whole world. I can't imagine how scared she was. It hurts so bad. It hurts so bad. We now no longer get to make more memories with them. Only hold on to the ones we have. Close in our hearts. Jamie no longer has her parents, which were her whole world, and she was their whole world. She no longer has her home. Her bedroom, her belongings, all that stuff is just bad memories to her. You have taken all that and more. It can't be replaced. She lives in fear. Doesn't have a normal 13-year-old life. And that's all from what you did. It's so heartbreaking. We now live in fear every day. Watch our backs. Have home security systems. We don't feel safe. I will say I won't let you destroy my family no more. We can be happy again. Smile more. Move forward with life. And that's why we can. We will know you will be behind bars for the rest of your life. And pay for all the evil you have done. I want justice for Denise, Jim, and Jamie. Judge, I come in front of you today to ask that you sentence the defendant to the max sentence at each count in this case. [00:10:06] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:10:07] Speaker 6: Thank you. [00:10:14] Speaker 3: Kelly Angerhart. [00:10:21] Speaker 1: Ms. Angerhart, if you'll be seated right next to Mr. Wright, and the first thing I'll ask you to do is state your full name and spell your last name. [00:10:28] Speaker 7: Sure. My name is Kelly Engerhart, E-N-G-E-L-H-A-R. [00:10:38] Speaker 1: Go ahead. DT. [00:10:47] Speaker 7: I am Jim's little sister. I tried to cry as much as I could, so I wouldn't do this. But as you can see from the beautiful people that spoke before me, this is devastating to us all. My brother, 56 years old, just a simple man, didn't want fur, didn't have toys, didn't have nice trucks. He worked all of his life. He worked for 27 years at Genio, and that's not easy work. He did what he could for his family. He worked every single overtime shift he could, and I never once heard him complain about it. He knew that's what he had to do. Like they said the night we got the call, I still don't believe it. I still think that I'm going to wake up someday, and this is going to be a bad dream. But obviously today we're here, and none of us are going to win today. None of us are going to get our family members back. My mother isn't going to get her Sunday phone call from her son to tell her how the Packers, talk about the Packers, talk about the things that they like to talk about. No parent should ever lose their child, and unfortunately, my mother did. And it's devastating. It's devastated us all. I remember the night after it happened, and we were at home, and we had to go to bed. I have never in my life been so scared. I was scared to death for my siblings. I was scared to death for my kids. I was scared to death for everybody, because we didn't know. For 88 days, we had to listen to people speculate, people talk about your family. And we didn't know. We didn't know who was involved. If we were in danger, it was extremely exhausting. You never go to bed for 88 days knowing that your niece is there, out there somewhere. How do you go to bed at night knowing, is she hungry? Is she scared? And we had to do that for 88 days. And I think as a family, like they said, it goes in your brain, and it never stops. You can never, you never not think about it. And it's devastating. My kids lost an aunt and uncle. My nieces and nephews lost. My brothers lost their best friend. And that's the hardest to see your family members suffer. But we all suffered. But thank God, after those 88 days, we at least got answers. We were able to put the pieces together. And one person did that. That was my niece. She saved our family. She put the pieces together. And now we need to move on. And, Judge, we ask that the family ask that you, like the lady said before, to please sentence him to life in prison on both sentences consecutively with no possibility of parole. So we have to be able to go to sleep at night knowing that our niece is finally safe and that nobody else can be hurt. Thank you. [00:14:43] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:14:44] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:14:44] Speaker 3: Mike Klaus. [00:14:50] Speaker 1: Mr. Klaus, if you come and sit next to Mr. Wright, if you tell us your full name, please. [00:15:00] Speaker 8: First name Mike, last name Klaus, M-I-K-E-C-L-O-S-S. [00:15:05] Speaker 1: What would you like to tell me, Mr. Klaus? [00:15:07] Speaker 8: A lot of it judges. My sister said quite a bit of it. My brother, he was a dedicated, hardworking guy, like she said, 27 years. He worked at that turkey store. And I can probably count on one hand the days he missed because he was sick. He tried to do the best. He tried to provide for his family, like my sister said, every Sunday. He called my mom. He would talk about Jamie and Denise's weekly, what they had going on that week. He was a big, we're a big sports family. He loved sports, but he especially loved the Packers. He called my brother, Jeff, every Sunday. And they talked football. He got a lot, like a lot of us Packer fans, they lost on Sunday. He wasn't the best guy to be around Monday. He was just, yeah, he took it to heart. But that's a good thing. So my mom, brother, are going to have them phone calls. That's taken from us. October 15th. I remember it like yesterday. I think about it every day. I was getting ready for work. My wife came down screaming, your brother's dead, Denise is dead, and they can't find Jamie. I didn't know, I didn't know how do you comprehend anything like that. So I went to the sheriff's office, Sarah Falls, was waiting for my sister. Told us what happened. And I, like I said, I, you know, not used to none of that. Then I had the undaunting task of going to my mom's house and tell her that her son, daughter-in-law, were murdered, and that Jamie was missing. I've done a lot of hard things in my lifetime. But that was, Judge, that was the hardest thing I had to do. And like Kelly said, the next 88 days, they were terrible. I mean, we lived in fear. My kids were scared. My niece and nephews were scared. My wife was scared. My, you know, mom was scared. And I just don't know how to describe it. Just, it's a feeling that you don't want to ever have anybody else go through. And then as I learned about the events of that early morning, I met peace that my brother did not suffer. But my mom was mad as hell that he didn't have a chance. Because if he would have had a chance, you know, he, this would have been totally different. And like Sue, Jennifer said, Lindsay, I can't imagine what Denise was going through her mind was going through her mind in that bathroom. I just, I don't know, you know. And she didn't die in vain. She died protecting Jamie. I mean, that's all we could, I mean, that's great. And because of this monster, Jamie won't have her mom and dad at her dance recitals. Won't have her mom and dad at her prom come and dance. My brother won't be able to walk down the aisle on a wedding day. Just, sorry. My parents, they raised us just to be good, hardworking people. Treat people fair on her. Do the right thing. Jim and Dace were doing the right thing. And, uh, Jimmy didn't get treated fair that morning. So we just ask that you impose the maximum sentences. Do the right thing. And, uh, please do that. Thank you. [00:19:43] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:19:48] Speaker 3: Jeff Kloss. [00:19:53] Speaker 1: Mr. Kloss, if you'll be seated next to Mr. Wright. And if you'd start out stating your full name, please. Jeff Kloss. Jeffrey D. Kloss, I'm sorry. Mr. Kloss, what would you like to tell me? [00:20:07] Speaker 9: Well, Mike and my brother Mike's been the spokesman for the family. And it's done a great job. And all things he said are absolutely true. And I was listening to Lindsey. I started thinking about, like Mike said, you know, Jim didn't have a chance. But he, he terrorized. He terrorized. And he's, one thing about Jim. Just give me a minute. Jim was as tough as they came. If he could have got his hands on him, it would have been different. And we miss him. And love him. And we think about him every day. And like Mike said, the phone calls, they're done. I went out often. He gets to talk to his family. We don't get to talk to him at all, ever again. And we have to live with that. And we will. And we'll be stronger. We're going to move on. Judge, I know you're going to do the right thing. One thing about Jim, he just, he wanted to go to work. He loved the, like Mike said, he loved the Packers. He loved the, he loved Wisconsin sports. And that's what he lived for. You know, I think that's a pretty good day. So, I know you're going to do the right thing. Thank you. [00:21:45] Speaker 3: Thank you. Attorney Chris Gramstrup. [00:21:54] Speaker 1: Mr. Gramstrup, if you'll state your full name, then spell both your first and last name. [00:22:03] Speaker 10: Chris Gramstrup, C-H-R-I-S, G-R-A-M-S-T-R-U-P. Go ahead. Judge, this is the statement of Jamie Closs. Okay. Last October, Jake Patterson took a lot of things that I love away from me. It makes me the most sad that he took away my mom and my dad. I loved my mom and dad very much. And they loved me very much. They did all they could to make me happy and protect me. He took them away from me forever. I felt safe in my home. And I loved my room and all of my belongings. He took all of that too. I don't want to even see my home or my stuff because of the memory of that night. My parents and my home were the most important things in my life. He took them away from me in a way that will always leave me with a horrifying memory. I have to have an alarm on the house now just so I can sleep. I used to love to go out with my friends. I loved to go to school. I loved to do dance. He took all of those things away from me, too. It's too hard for me to go out in public. I get scared and I get anxious. These are just ordinary things that anyone like me should be able to do, but I can't because he took them away from me. But there are some things that Jake Patterson can never take from me. He can't take my freedom. [00:23:51] Speaker ?: He thought that he could own me, but he was wrong. [00:23:51] Speaker 10: I was smarter. I watched his routine and I took back my freedom. I will always have my freedom and he will not. Jake Patterson can never take away my courage. He thought he could control me, but he couldn't. I feel like what he did is what a coward would do. I was brave and he was not. He can never take away my spirit. He thought that he could make me like him, but he was wrong. He can't ever change me or take away who I am. He can't stop me from being happy and moving forward with my life. I will go on to do great things in my life and he will not. Jake Patterson will never have any power over me. I feel like I have some power over him because I get to tell the judge what I think should happen to him. He stole my parents from me. He stole almost everything I loved from me. For 88 days he tried to steal me and he didn't care who he hurt or who he killed to do that. He should stay locked up forever. Judge, those are the words of Jamie Kloss and it's been my privilege to deliver them to you. Thank you. [00:25:20] Speaker 3: No additional statements, your honor. All right. [00:25:28] Speaker 1: And I have reviewed the written statements provided to me today. I think you got a copy of those, Mr. Glynn. We did, your honor. Okay. Any other witnesses on behalf of the state? No, your honor. Mr. Glynn, any witnesses on behalf of the defense? No. All right. The state's argument? [00:25:58] Speaker 3: May it please the court. The state is asking you to follow the sentencing recommendation submitted by Agent Jennifer Sem in her pre-sentence investigation report. That sentencing recommendation joined by the state is as follows. The state is asking you to sentence the defendant, Jake Patterson, to life imprisonment on count one, first degree intentional homicide for intentionally causing the death of James Kloss on October 15, 2018, 2018, shortly before 1:00 a.m., and to find the defendant is not eligible for release, to extended supervision for intentionally causing the death of James Kloss. The state is asking you to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment on count two, first degree intentional homicide for intentionally causing the death of Denise Kloss, also on October 15, 2018, shortly before 1:00 a.m., and to find the defendant is not eligible for release, to extended supervision for intentionally causing the death of Denise Kloss, and that the sentence of life imprisonment on count two, run consecutively to the state's requested sentence of life imprisonment on count one. The state is asking you to sentence the defendant to the maximum sentence of 40 years imprisonment on count three for kidnapping Jamie Kloss on October 15, 2018, shortly before 1:00 a.m., after the defendant murdered both of her parents, that the bifurcated sentence on count three, consists of a term of initial confinement in prison for 25 years, followed by a term of extended supervision for 15 years, and that the total length of the 40-year bifurcated sentence on count three, run consecutively to the state's request for consecutive sentences of life imprisonment on counts one and two. The state's sentencing argument that you find the defendant not eligible for release to extended supervision on counts one and two is based on the same factors the court will consider when sentencing the the defendant. Gravity of the offenses, character of the offender, and the need to protect the public. The state's argument both as to sentencing and finding the defendant not eligible for release to extended supervision encompasses the charge of armed burglary in count four of the information which was dismissed and read in. The gravity of the offenses is evident by the very essence of the charges to which Mr. Patterson pled guilty, two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, both Class A felonies and kidnapping, a Class C felony. In every way imaginable, these crimes are aggravated in this case by the premeditated planning the defendant engaged in his calculated and cold-blooded murder of two innocent parents, James Claus and Denise Claus, in the presence of their 13-year-old daughter, Jamie Claus, his abduction of Jamie by force from her home, and his confinement of Jamie at his residence in Gordon for 88 days before she was able to escape. Your Honor, exhibit one are family photos of James, Denise, and Jamie. This is the family that Mr. Patterson destroyed. James was 56 years old when he died at the hands of the defendant of a gunshot wound to the head The medical examiner ruled the manner of James's and Denise's death, a double homicide. James and Denise loved Jamie, who was their only child ahead of anything else. Jamie was everything to them. Jamie and her mother were especially close. pictures of Jamie adorned the Claus home. James and Denise both worked. Over the years, they were able to purchase their own home just outside of They put money aside for retirement, spent time at the lake in the summer with Jamie, attended family gatherings, were active members of their church, a quintessential Wisconsin small-town family. All of this was about to change. In early October 2018, the defendant got a job through a temp agency working at Saputo Cheese in Almena. As he was driving to work on the morning of his first day, he saw Jamie getting on the school bus that stopped in front of the Claus home. When he saw Jamie, his thoughts immediately turned to how he could kidnap her. He had been thinking about kidnapping a girl for several months and was just waiting for the right opportunity. When he saw Jamie getting on the school bus, he began plotting that because of the location of the Claus home on highway 8, police wouldn't know where he had come from. Duluth, Eau Claire, the Twin Cities. And there was little or no traffic at night. It was a location where the defendant felt he would be able to get away with his scheme of kidnapping a girl, any girl. The defendant quit on his second day of work at Saputo Cheese. On the very night he quit, which was on a Friday, he made his first attempt to kidnap Jamie. The defendant drove past the Claus home around 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m., but when he got there, realized he went there too early. There were cars in the driveway and he was concerned that someone there would see him. He was concerned that he would get caught. The defendant drove to the Claus home a second time, two days later, on Sunday night with the intent to kidnap Jamie. This time he got to the Claus home later, on Monday morning around 12:30 a.m. The defendant was thwarted in his second attempt to kidnap Jamie because the lights in the Claus home were still on and he saw people moving around. Again, he was concerned that he would get caught. On Sunday night, October 14, 2018, the defendant made final preparations to kidnap Jamie. This would be his third trip to the Claus home for the purpose of kidnapping her. He took a shower and shaved his head and beard to make it less likely he would leave any DNA behind. That night, he wore jeans, steel-toed boots, a black fleece sweatshirt, a black ski mask, black hat, two pairs of gloves. He brought with him a knife, black gorilla tape, a flashlight, and his father's 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun that was later recovered from the defendant's residence in Gordon. A statutory aggravating factor under section 973.017 of the Wisconsin statutes is the fact that Mr. Patterson concealed his identity. Earlier that night, the defendant loaded the shotgun with six 3-inch slug shotgun shells. He purposely loaded the shotgun with slugs as opposed to buckshot, knowing it was almost guaranteed that by shooting someone in the head with a slug, they would be dead. He wore gloves and wiped down the shells with a handkerchief to avoid leaving fingerprints. He decided to use his father's Mossberg shotgun for two reasons. One, because it was such a common gun and would be difficult to narrow down to him. And two, it would be most effective in killing whoever was in the house. The defendant disengaged the interior dome light in his car and cut out the interior trunk safety release so the trunk could not be opened from the inside. What he described as the glow in the dark kidnapping court. As he had done on his two prior aborted attempts to kidnap Jamie, he replaced his rear license plate on his car before getting to Baron with a license plate he stole off another vehicle. Driving through Baron, the defendant read himself to kill whoever was inside the house with Jamie that night, the defendant decided the best way he could get away with kidnapping Jamie was to go to the Klaus home at night. He arrived at the Klaus home on Monday morning October 15, 2018 at approximately 12:45 AM or 12:50 AM. Mr. Patterson, his car came in and headlights off and coasted into the driveway. His car came to a stop in the middle of the driveway. His car came to a stop in the middle of the driveway. He grabbed the shotgun, got out of his car and walked up the driveway. There were no lights on in the house and it was pitch black dark outside. Exhibit two, your honor, is a photo of the shotgun the defendant used to murder James and Denise. Mr. Patterson's DNA was on the shotgun. Exhibit three is a photo of the three unused slug shells out of the six shells he loaded into the magazine tube of the shotgun. The three spent shells that were found at the Klaus home match Exhibit three. Ballistic tests determined the three spent shells were fired from the shotgun shown in Exhibit two. And the defendant's DNA was found on all three of the spent shells that were found at the Klaus home. Inside the house, Jamie was in her bedroom when she heard her dog, Molly, start barking. Jamie got up and saw the unexplained car in the driveway. She woke her dad and mom up. Denise and Jamie went into the bathroom. Denise locked the bathroom door, pulled out a drawer from a bathroom cabinet to barricade the door shut. And she and Jamie then hid in the bathtub. James did what any good father would do. He put himself between the unknown danger that lurked outside and his wife and daughter. James holding a flashlight or the light from his phone peered through the window in the living room in an attempt to see who was outside. As the defendant was walking up the stairs to the front door, he saw someone in the living room window who was shining a flashlight or a light from a phone outside. That person was James. According to his statement to police, the defendant yelled loudly, "Don't move. Get on the ground." James did not get on the ground and instead walked to the front door. By then the defendant had opened the storm door and was standing directly in front of the interior door which was locked. In his statement to police, the defendant said he then yelled, "Open the fucking door." James looked through the small wrought iron window pane in the middle of the interior door and asked the defendant to identify himself. With the barrel of the shotgun inches from the window pane and pointed directly at James, the defendant shot James in the head at point blank range. The terror and fear that Denise and Jamie felt at that moment must have been excruciating. This was a shotgun. This wasn't a handgun. It wasn't a gun with a silencer, but a shotgun. A shotgun that country neighbors to the west with a stand of trees between their home and the Klaus home could hear even from inside their house. At close range, the sound of that shotgun blast would have jolted Denise and Jamie and the sound would have been deafening. Add to that their sense that James was dead. The defendant tried kicking the door open but could not gain entry. He pumped another round into the chamber of the shotgun and shot at the lock. Only seconds later, Denise and Jamie would have been jolted a second time when they heard the deafening sound of the second shotgun blast, also heard by the neighbors to the west. He was then able to gain entry into the house by kicking in the door. Exhibit four is the photograph of the front door that Mr. Patterson kicked in after shooting at the lock. The defendant saw James grabbing his face as he stepped past him. Now inside the house, he immediately proceeded to the closest interior door to him, which was the bathroom door. He tried to open it, but it was locked. At this point, the terror and fear that Denise and Jamie felt can only be described as unimaginable. Seconds after hearing the first two shotgun blasts, sensing James was dead, and now hearing someone forcibly trying to open the bathroom door. He raced through the rest of the house, intending to kill anyone he found. Anyone. Finding no one else inside, he returned to the locked bathroom door. Denise had taken her phone with her when she and Jamie hid in the bathroom. Somehow, in the midst of the terror and fear of knowing the person who shot James was now in the house, Denise was able to call 911. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch received. The CD recording of this call having been marked as Exhibit 5. [00:42:21] Speaker 11: The defendant rammed the bathroom door, open the door and opened the door. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. [00:42:32] Speaker ?: This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. [00:42:33] Speaker 11: This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. [00:42:39] Speaker ?: This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. This is the 911 call that Barron County Dispatch. [00:42:46] Speaker 3: The defendant rammed the bathroom door, over and over, before he was able to break through the door Denise had barricaded shut. Exhibit 6 is a photo of the bathroom door that he broke through to get to Denise and Jamie. "Denise and Jamie screamed in fear when the door gave way. Once inside the bathroom, he walked up to the closed shower curtain, shotgun in hand, and ripped the shower curtain down. When he did that, he saw Denise and Jamie huddled in a seated position in the corner of the tub, Denise clinging to Jamie, holding her in a bear hug. Denise told the defendant that she had already called 911 and that police were on the way. The defendant, who was still holding the shotgun in one hand, wrestled the phone out of Denise's hand with his other hand and threw it aside. According to his statement to police, he said in a calm voice, "Just be quiet. Do what I say and I won't hurt you." He took the duct tape that he brought with him out of his pocket and ordered Denise to cover her daughter's mouth the whole way around her head. Denise struggled to tape Jamie's mouth. The defendant's description is that she didn't do it very good. He put the shotgun down on the bathroom counter sink, took the duct tape away from Denise, and did it himself, taping Jamie's mouth, hands and ankles. With Jamie now bound and only feet away from her mother, the defendant grabbed the shotgun off the counter, pointed it at Denise's head and, at point blank range, shot her in the head. The proximity of Jamie to her mother and the sound of that third shotgun blast in the small, confined bathroom, even more deafening than the first two blasts, would have jolted Jamie to the bone. The defendant didn't even look at Denise when he killed her. The defendant grabbed Jamie by the arm and dragged her out of the house, almost slipping on James's blood when he stepped over him and dragging Jamie through her father's blood on the way out the door. When he got to his car, he dropped Jamie at the driver's side door, threw the shotgun in the passenger seat and then popped open the trunk. In his statement to police, Mr. Patterson said he told Jamie to be quiet and not to move or he would kill her. He then dragged her to the back of the car and threw her into the trunk. He got in his 2000 red Ford Taurus, took off the mask so no one would see him wearing a mask as he was driving away eastbound on Highway 8, and drove eastbound on Highway 8 with Jamie locked in the trunk. As he was driving eastbound on Highway 8, he pulled over when he saw squad cars with lights and sirens activated, racing westbound on Highway 8 to the Klaus home. When he got to his residence in Gordon, he removed Jamie from the trunk. For the next 88 days, he kept Jamie a prisoner in his house. Jamie went into survival mode. He kept her in constant fear by yelling at her and threatening her that things could get a lot worse for her and that something really bad would happen if she did not follow his rules. He would get mad at her for no reason at all. He physically hit her with a curtain rod. Exhibit 7, Your Honor, shows where the defendant confined Jamie for 88 days. [00:46:58] Speaker ?: Exhibit 7, Your Honor, shows where the defendant went to his house. [00:47:06] Speaker 3: This was her prison. To make sure she did not try to escape, the defendant put totes and bins filled with his clothes around the bed so she could not see out. He placed barbells and free weights from weightlifting equipment he had in the totes or around the totes to make it harder for Jamie to move them and as a way for him to see if she tried to get out from under the bed. When he had people over, he took the additional step of turning the radio on so Jamie could not hear his conversations with persons who came to the house. The defendant celebrated Thanksgiving eating out at a restaurant with his family while Jamie was confined to her prison under the defendant's bed. No bathroom breaks, no movement, no sound out of her for up to 12 hours at a time. Those were the defendant's rules, rules she better follow or something really bad would happen to her. This horrific ordeal and the 88 days of trauma Jamie endured came to an end, not because of anything the defendant did, but because of Jamie's courage and will to survive. On Thursday, January 10, 2019, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Jamie, knowing full well what the defendant said would happen to her if he ever caught her trying to escape, did the incredible. Jamie summons the strength and courage of the bravest among us and decided no matter what happened to her, she was going to try and get away. She shoved the totes and weights away from the bed, crawled out from under the bed, managed to locate a pair of the defendant's sneakers and put them on, but was so hurried to get out of there before he caught her that she put them on the wrong feet. Seconds turned into minutes as she shoved the totes and weights away from the bed. With each step she took to escape, the terror of not knowing where he was got more and more intense. Was he in the house? Was he standing just outside the door? Would he drive up? Would he find her as she was walking down the driveway? Would he find her when she was walking down the road? Disheveled and wearing only pajamas, no coat, no gloves, and wearing sneakers far too big for her and on the wrong feet. She saw a lady, Jean Nutter, walking her dog and yelled for help. "I'm Jamie. I don't know where I am. He killed my parents. Please help. I want to go home." Homes in this subdivision are spread out and many of the homes and cabins are not occupied in the winter. Jamie was not out of danger when she was walking outside down the driveway and along the road. At the end of the driveway was a rural and remote road. Jamie had no idea where she was. The danger did not end for Jamie as she and Jean Nutter were walking down the road to the home of Peter and Kristen Kosinskas because of the distance, the sheer distance that they had to walk to the Kosinskas home. In the chilling words of Mr. Patterson, if he would have just returned home a half hour sooner, he could have prevented her from running away. The defendant arrived at his house that afternoon and in his words, quote, "knew he was fucked," unquote, when Jamie wasn't under the bed. He saw tracks in the snow and a police car at a house down the road from his residence. The defendant got back in his car to hunt for Jamie. Even after he saw police at the other house, he still considered whether he should just go out there and maybe see if he could do something. The thought he gave to doing something, even after seeing the police, leaves little doubt about the grave danger that Jamie, Jean Nutter, and Peter and Kristen Kosinskas and their family were in if Mr. Patterson had found Jamie before police arrived. The defendant had already shown what he would do if anyone got in the way of what he wanted: kill anyone with Jamie and leave no witnesses behind. Mr. Patterson is a cold-blooded killer who traumatized a 13-year-old girl for 88 days. He brutally murdered James and Denise because they stood in the way of his getting away with kidnapping the girl he saw getting on a school bus, a girl whose name he didn't even know when he kidnapped her. The defendant insists he is a good person and this makes him extremely dangerous. During Jamie's period of captivity, he told her that she had it really good at his residence, told her how good he was treating her, how she could have it a lot worse. On his job application, which he completed the day Jamie escaped, he wrote that he is an honest and hard-working guy. When he was interviewed, he told investigators, quote, "I'm like a nice guy most of the time," end of quote. Mr. Patterson's lack of insight into why he is not a good person makes him a continuing danger. He has no empathy or remorse for killing James and Denise. Lou Raguse, a reporter with CARE 11 News, sent Mr. Patterson 10 questions which he answered, the defendant answered, and I've included Mr. Raguse's questions and Mr. Patterson's answers as exhibit eight, nowhere in the defendant's answers to Mr. Raguse's questions will you find him expressing any remorse for murdering James and Denise. What an indignity to their lives for him to say the reason he did this is complicated. There is nothing complicated about why he murdered James and Denise. He murdered them to avoid getting caught. Their lives were inconsequential to him, just an obstacle in his way to kidnapping Jamie. What you will find in his letter to Mr. Raguse is his continued attempt to control Jamie by communicating directly with her about how sorry he is about everything. He's not sorry for kidnapping Jamie and murdering her parents. He's sorry that he got caught. Detective Nelson observed that the only time Mr. Patterson became emotional when he confessed to murdering James and Denise and kidnapping Jamie was when he asked if he would spend the rest of his life in prison. How sorry would Mr. Patterson have been for everything on January 10 had he gotten to his house a little earlier and found Jamie inside putting on his shoes or walking down the driveway of the house that he was residing in in Gordon or walking along the road with Gene Nutter. How sorry would he have been then? His only remorse is that he is no longer able to exercise complete and total control over the 13 year old girl he kidnapped and thought he had gotten away with. Mr. Patterson murdered two human beings in cold blood and kidnapped a 13 year old girl and yet he is the one who is upset. This was his answer to one of Mr. Raguse's questions. Quote little mad about the cops saying I planned this out. This was mostly on impulse. End of quote. The defendant will stop at nothing to get what he wants if he is ever released from prison. The need to protect the public starts with Jamie. If Mr. Patterson is ever released from prison he will find Jamie and when he does her life will be in jeopardy. After two weeks the defendant thought he had gotten away with murdering James and Denise and kidnapping Jamie. After 88 days he was so confident he had gotten away with it that he applied for a job. He got caught because Jamie didn't follow his rules. He made it very clear that something really bad would happen to her if she didn't follow his rules. Not only did she not follow his rules but in his self-obsessed way of looking at why he got caught she betrayed him by escaping. It was because she escaped that he got caught. For Jamie's safety the defendant can never be given an opportunity to bring about what he meant when he told Jamie that something really bad would happen to her if she didn't follow his rules. As the defendant was driving away from the Klaus home on October 15, 2018 he positioned the shotgun with the three slugs that were shown in Exhibit 3 still in the magazine tube on the passenger side of the car. When he was interviewed the defendant indicated he thought about shooting the cops if he was stopped. For the first two weeks after he kidnapped Jamie he kept the shotgun loaded and ready in the house just in case just in case the police arrived. The defendant was prepared to kill again. If Mr. Patterson is ever released from prison anyone standing between himself and Jamie will be in peril. The defendant planned out in detail how he was going to kidnap a girl any girl and get away with it. As carefully as he planned Jamie's kidnapping he will eliminate any possibility of his target escaping if there is a next time. His mindset was to kidnap a girl any girl. As time passes maybe he will lose interest in Jamie but time won't fix his mindset of taking multiple girls and killing multiple families before he kidnapped Jamie. For the safety of the community the defendant can never be given an opportunity to kidnap another girl and to murder her or anyone with her. The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant's decision to enter a plea and respectfully that does not move the scale one bit after what he did to Jamie and her family and the families of James and Denise. The impact of what he did will never go away for Jamie and for the families of James and Denise. Some of whom you have heard from today and are present in the courtroom. Others who are here but are watching from a different courtroom and still others who aren't here because the trauma of what happened is still just too much. Agent Sam described the impact that this has had on not only Jamie but the families of James and Denise and you've heard about that impact today from them. Some of the impact that they understand and over time have been able to move away from was the fact that they weren't able to grieve for the loss of James and Denise because at the time of their funerals they were worried about whether or not Jamie was dead or alive. All family members had their homes searched. They voluntarily submitted DNA. Some were even questioned on the day of James' and Denise's funeral. Those are things that over time they will move past but the things that are not going to be as easy are those that you've heard about. Jennifer who is Denise's sister describing how Denise would stop by Jennifer's house two or three times a week just to visit oftentimes bringing a Dairy Queen treat to share always bringing a big platter of cookies to family gatherings. Sometimes they would just hop in a car turn the music up loud and just drive around. Sue another one of Denise's sisters describing how Denise would call her every day sometimes four times a day. Sue and her brother having to go to their father's home and tell him that Denise had been murdered. James's mother Lynn learning that she had lost a son. Mike and Kelly learning that they had lost their brother. You've heard the description of James. Hard worker. Long hours because he wanted to be able to give Jamie anything she wanted. Something that anyone who has been a parent understands. Everything he did was for his wife and daughter. James and Denise will never again experience the joy of seeing their daughter who they loved ahead of anything else. Simple pleasures like spending time at the lake with Jamie on a summer day. Those are gone. Denise ever getting to hug Jamie again. It's gone. Beaming as proud parents when Jamie graduates from her upcoming eighth grade graduation. Is gone. These are things that James and Denise worked so hard to be able to share with Jamie. For Jamie she was a room away from her father when he was brutally murdered by the defendant and feet away from her mother when she was brutally murdered by the defendant. The first thing the defendant said to Jamie after he dragged her out to his car was to be quiet don't move or he would kill her. For the next 88 days Jamie's life was sheer hell and at thirteen years old she had to endure the trauma of not knowing from one day to the next if he would discipline or kill her. And what of the trauma of seeing both of her parents murdered. Jamie couldn't even attend her parents funeral. Nothing Mr. Patterson says or does can mitigate the trauma he inflicted on a 13 year old girl by murdering her parents and then kidnapping Jamie for 88 days. Nothing Mr. Patterson says or does can mitigate the trauma he inflicted on the families of James and Denise. Jamie should not have to spend one second of the rest of her life having to worry about the defendant being free. Nor should the families of James and Denise have to spend one second of the rest of their lives having to worry about the defendant being free and what could happen to them. Nor should the public have to worry about what Mr. Patterson is capable of doing if he is ever released from prison. Mr. Patterson has forfeited the privilege of ever again living in the community. The state respectfully submits that it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of Mr. Patterson's crimes to sentence him to anything less than the maximum sentence this court can impose. With no eligibility for extended supervision on counts one and two and the maximum sentence on count three. All counts to run consecutively to each other. That's all. [01:04:28] Speaker 1: Mr. Glenn or Mr. Jones which one of you is going to go first. [01:04:32] Speaker 2: I will go first your honor. [01:04:33] Speaker 1: All right go ahead Mr. Glenn. [01:04:35] Speaker 2: Your honor first and foremost Mr. Patterson, Mr. Jones and I are fully aware that everything we say here today will fall on deaf ears for most people and even hostile ears for many people. We rely on the fair and impartial arbiter of justice this court. That's you your honor. One of the reasons that judges wear robes is to cloak them from the powers of emotional and political pressure. Mr. Patterson needs that today. Mr. Jones and I are with the Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office. And our job is to make sure that Mr. Patterson's proceedings are conducted in compliance with the Wisconsin and the United States constitutions. We believe we've done that. I said to the court earlier that I would take issue with some of the PSI, the pre-sentence investigation. Mr. Patterson does take issue with some of it. A big deal was made in the media and some people in the community that Mr. Patterson declined to sit for an interview with the PSI writer. Mr. Jones and I did in fact advise him not to given the circumstances. And it looked like that it looks like in retrospect that that was a good decision. He did not sit for that interview. And it appears that the writer of the PSI was caught up in the emotion of this. A PSI is a statutory edict within our criminal justice system. They are to investigate facts, bring them to the court in an objective fashion, and set aside biases and set aside any other personal feelings. The PSI writer in this case did not do that. They used language like Mr. Patterson succumbed to his twisted fantasies. Now, I'd expect to hear that from people and we actually heard it today. We heard those words, but that's not the role of a PSI writer. They worked for the state. This court ordered that PSI to be objective, and it wasn't. Throughout it, there is personal opinion and even some attempts at diagnosing Mr. Patterson with certain mental health diagnoses, which I don't believe the PSI writer is credentialed for and is not able to do so, but did so nonetheless. Now, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Jones, and I fully understand that someone could get caught up in the strong emotion of this case. We've all lived through this. It's been a tough, tough time. But to do that in the context of a pre-sentence investigation is just not right and it doesn't assist the court in coming to a fair and just sentence. During the course of our representation of Mr. Patterson, Dr. Gregory Van Rybrook, a well-respected forensic psychologist in the state of Wisconsin, had the chance to interview and analyze and diagnose Mr. Patterson. He found that there was no sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies. He found that there were no mental diagnoses that applied to Mr. Patterson at the time. He made very strong conclusions. He obviously called the crimes abhorrent. He referred to them as well outside the boundaries of social behavior. But he ruled out all such mental diseases and defects and concluded that Mr. Patterson is not a sociopath and does not have psychopathic tendencies. Dr. Van Rybrook further concluded that Mr. Patterson's actions, while being abhorrent, were not part of escalating behaviors arising from childhood or adolescence. Dr. Van Rybrook goes on to offer the following conclusion. Mr. Patterson severely overreacted to his loneliness and resulted disconnection from most people due to his self-imposed isolating behaviors. His criminal actions were a desperate attempt to inject some meaning into his life and give him a reason to live without regard for harm to the harm it would cause to others. Now, that comes from a person who had the opportunity to sit with him and actually was credentialed to diagnose and to assess those matters. The PSI writer did not have that opportunity, first of all, but was not in a position to diagnose, but nonetheless threw around those diagnoses. And I think that taints the PSI. Of course, we would ask the court not to follow the PSI. Mr. Patterson's not getting out of prison. He's going to prison for the rest of his life. In fact, the first time I heard that was on January 13, 2019 from the lips of Mr. Patterson. He told us on that night he was prepared to go to prison for the rest of his life for the horrible things that he had done. I would like the court now to imagine that rather than 2019, today is May 24, 2022, that we are here for a sentencing after a two to three month trial involving charges not just from Barron County, but charges from Douglas County. It would have been a highly emotional trial perpetrating the turmoil that was already facing this community and the families. The trial likely would have taken place in another county and perhaps have been presided over by another judge. There would have been months of pretrial litigation, challenges to statements and evidence, joinder issues, venue issues, many other typical criminal law motions. And perhaps it might have even had a second phase of the trial as to mental responsibility with four or five doctors testifying. Law enforcement would have been taxed further for the trial itself and for preparation of the trial. Law enforcement had already been taxed to the extreme during the 88 days of this case. And perhaps the victim and families and hundreds of other witnesses would have had to testify at such a trial. This horrific episode in the community would have been stuck in limbo for several years with no possible possibility of healing. None of this happened. It, in fact, is May 24, 2019. We are just 134 days away since Mr. Patterson was arrested. In my experience, that is unprecedented for the resolution of a case. I take issue with Mr. Wright's conclusion that that is a bit of a mitigating circumstance. That is one heck of a mitigating circumstance. Does it give him a get out of jail or get out of prison free card? Heck, heck no. Absolutely not. That would be absurd. But the fact that all of that did not happen is only because of one person. And that person is Jake Patterson. It's not Charlie Glenn. It's not Richard Jones. It's Jake Patterson. He made that decision. And he actually made that decision and conveyed it to us on January 13th. And if this court would have allowed and if our legal obligations would have allowed, he wanted to plead guilty the next day. That doesn't, to me, that doesn't, to me, seem like someone who doesn't understand the horrible actions that they've taken or understand the -- and have remorse. I understand that the comeback for everything that we say here today is, yeah, but if he hadn't have done what he did, he, you know, wouldn't have had to say that or do that. But that just can't -- we can't change what happened. But what he has changed is the further trauma, further ordeal that this community, the victim and the families would have to go through. I implore the court to recognize and consider and factor this into the sentence. Again, Jake Patterson is never getting out of prison. He accepts that and understands that. But this court can fashion a sentence in a way that does give him some programmatic possibilities. We are a state that is known for good therapeutic efforts in our prisons. There's lots of things. You can either be a bad prisoner or a good prisoner. You can -- just like in the streets, you can be a person who contributes to society or doesn't. One of the things that he will need is he will need some help. And I know nobody is in a very sympathetic mood for him here right now. But one of the things that you can't do when you're sentenced to life in prison without parole is you don't get the same programmatic offerings, the same type of social work services, the same type of therapy, the same type of job opportunities, the same opportunity to be a good prisoner, a contributing person in the prison. Since Mr. Patterson got out of the car and said that he did it to the deputy up in Gordon, Wisconsin, he has taken responsibility for what he has done. That can't change anything. It obviously isn't going to be a factor that's going to change ultimately what I've said several times. He's not getting out of prison. But it was -- what it does is taking responsibility and the remorse that he has shown that I have seen, that he has exhibited here in court during the plea hearings and at other times. What it does, it gives the court the opportunity to rise above the powers of emotion and the powers of political pressure and to say that there would be an opportunity for parole. And I'm talking in the far distance. But what that does, it changes how things are treated within the Department of Corrections. Whether concurrent or consecutive, with an opportunity for parole far off in 50 or 60 years, it is that much of a positive effect to have happen. No matter what he does on any of the consecutive -- what the court does on any of the consecutive or concurrent life sentences, he's got 25 years after that. He's going to be into his hundreds by the time, even if the court grants -- eligibility for extended supervision at a later date. He is going to be well into his hundreds before he would ever be eligible to get out. It's not going to happen. Mr. Patterson understands, knows, and has accepted since day one of our representation of him that he is going to die in prison and hasn't asked us to argue for anything else. Jake never wavered on this. We have questioned him on this. We've encouraged him to explore all options. Jake has never given us a reason to doubt his competency. Jake agreed to be interviewed by Dr. Van Rybrick, but he made it crystal clear to us that he would not allow us to file a plea of not guilty by mental disease or defect. That is his decision. Jake intended to move this case forward to this day as quickly as possible. And again, I reiterate that I am startled by the quickness of it, and that's exactly what he wanted, and that's why we are here just 134 days out from the arrest. He wanted to forego motions, to forego a trial. Jake knew and accepted from the beginning of the case that he was going to die in prison, and he was going to be in prison for the rest of his life. One of his main goals in this was to make the process as least impactful to JLC as possible, and I believe he's done that, and that cannot and should not be discounted. I know that some will argue that it's too late for that. The horrific acts have already been done, but anyone that knows anything about our criminal justice system knows that not having to go through motions in a way. So I think it's important for him to take the trial and wait for a trial is a huge step forward to healing, both for the individuals involved and for the community, for victims, for witnesses, for families in the communities. The way to recognize Jake taking responsibility for his actions and for avoiding all of those traumatic events is to set a far-off future parole eligibility date or extended supervision date, knowing that it will not change the fact that he will not get out. The sentence can be structured in a fashion that makes sure that he does stay in prison for the rest of his life, but it's the opportunity for consideration for parole that changes how someone is treated programmatically and to be given help and to be given to be a productive member in prison. Mr. Jones will argue for the specific sentence and will review the three most important factors that the court has to consider when sentencing Mr. Patterson. Thank you for your time, Your Honor. Mr. Jones. [01:17:19] Speaker 12: Your Honor, I'm a man who works a lot of hours, particularly in the middle of the night. And one night I was watching the news and they reported this incident from Barron, Wisconsin, that a man and woman had been killed and eventually that their child was missing. And I'd been to Barron. I had another major case in this area. My client was housed here. And I watched the community come together to support that family during that crisis. And in my heart, I knew that they would do the same this time. I didn't know these folks, but I prayed for this kid because that's what I do. And I watched all the news accounts. For 88 days, I watched billboards pop up throughout the state because Charlie and I practiced throughout the state. News channels and news outlets covered the case. Prayer vigils and rewards were offered. Then one day, which I now know was January 10th, 2019, this child was found. And contrary to who we are and what we and what people think, that really was a good day. But it wasn't the end for Charlie and I. One day, our boss, the head of our trial division, attorney Jennifer Bias, walked in to talk to me. And I realized, and the issue arose that eventually Charlie and our names were placed on an order appointing counsel so that we could represent the man who had been arrested and would be charged with this offense. We were assigned a wonderful team, exceptional investigator named Neil Maynard, extraordinary client services person named Abby Kelly, two talented young lawyers named Andy Kanak and Stephanie Thomas. Because we knew that the amount of work we were going to have to do was significant. Immediately, Charlie and I began to discuss the facts of the case. We started to, you know, the little bit that we knew. But as always, when we handled cases together, the thing that intrigued us is we wondered what Jake Patterson was like. We'd never met him. We'd never spoken to him. We knew very little about him. And we knew no one who knew him. The newspapers and public began to use a number of adjectives to describe him, but we needed to know for ourselves. So on a Sunday night, January 13th, we drove to the Barron County Jail to meet Jake Patterson. We found him to be direct, intelligent, honest with us, and remorseful. We found him to be a quiet man that struggled with the weight of his actions and the magnitude of what he had done. We found him to be a man so burdened by the magnitude of his actions that he would find it difficult to look at us. He was so burdened by his actions that he struggled to tell us a story that he'd already given to law enforcement in great detail. We came to realize it was because the significance of the story that he had told and the details of that story began to resonate and he started to really appreciate what he had done. He was embarrassed. He was hurt. But he was willing to accept responsibility. During that time, one of the first times that he became very emotional was when he thought about the fact that he had done this and that his parents and his family were impacted by this as well. That was hard for him. But on that Sunday night, we began to represent Jake in what is easily the most media-saturated case Charlie and I will ever handle in our careers. He comes before you to be sentenced on counts one, two, and three of the information. Counts that he voluntarily and expeditiously pled guilty to. It took everything in us. We have almost 60 years of practice together. It took everything in us to just get him to allow us to do our job, to do our due diligence, to read the discovery, to investigate facts, to discuss it with our team, to really know what we were getting ourselves into. We had to present to him the options. Yes, he gave a statement, but Miranda Goodchild hearings allow us to suppress those statements. Yes, he wanted to plead guilty, but we didn't have to pick a jury in Barron County. Although, you know, the way the community came together, the fact that the majority of the community came out to help search meant that it would be impossible to pick a jury here. We could have substituted on the judge. He didn't want any of that. No motion, nothing that we laid before him did he want to do. He wanted to plead guilty and he wanted to be sentenced. Wisconsin statute section 973.014 sub 1G sub 1A provides the sentence structure for someone to be sentenced under the term of first degree intentional homicide. That person can be eligible for extended supervision after serving 20 years. That person may be sentenced in a way that they're not eligible for extended supervision at all. Or the court can set a date that the court must set beyond the 20 years. There are a number of cases, State v. Sedergore, State v. Sealy, State v. Carter, and State v. Varel, that tell the court that in establishing a specific extended supervision eligibility date on a life sentence, the trial court sentencing decision should be based on factors that are relevant to three things: the gravity of the offense, the individual characteristics of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. State v. Varel admonishes us that the sentence imposed in each case should recognize the minimum amount of custody or confinement that is consistent with the need to protect the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant. Those cases go on to highlight a number of other individual factors that should be considered in conjunction with those three primary factors. Things like the aggravated nature of the crime, the effect of the crime on the victim, the interest of deterrence, the length of pretrial detention, the need for rehabilitative control, the defendant's remorse, the defendant's remorse, repentance and cooperativeness, the defendant's degree of culpability. So there's a number of other factors that the court has requested to consider. I'm going to briefly look at just the primary three. I'll incorporate other information from the sub-factors within that conversation, but I just want to structure it around the primary three factors that State v. Barel gives us. The first is the gravity of the offense. First-degree intentional homicide is deemed the most serious offense in the state of Wisconsin, whose penalty authorizes life in prison. Its gravity in some ways is unmatched by anything else, not only in our state, but in other states. It is the offense with the most significant penalties. So we don't at all attempt to minimize the gravity of the offense, nor can we. I don't want people to think that. Now there's Jake. He's never allowed anyone to. So we know the magnitude of what you have to sentence him. But then the court is required to look at the individual characteristics of the defendant. Jake Patterson, prior to these offenses, to our knowledge, has never committed a crime, has never been arrested, has never had a speeding ticket. He did get a parking ticket in Rice Lake once that he was really bothered by. I think he indicated something like he came back like a minute or so after the ticket was issued. It's not a lifestyle that he has lived in his past. It's interesting, though. It's easy for us to argue, let's just place him in prison for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole. But we have to examine his life. We have that responsibility. We have to look at him to see if there are any other options. As Attorney Glenn shared, we had Dr. Van Rybrook talk to Jake. The significant purpose for us is we wanted to know who this man is and was and has been. He's a quiet man. He doesn't give out a lot of details per se. He doesn't give out a lot of information. He will talk to us. But there was so much more we needed. We met his family. His dad is one of the nicest people, most wonderful people I've ever met. His sister and his brother, you know, they're just nice people. They told us some wonderful things about him. They shared some things. They shared some challenges about him. They shared other information, but we didn't know who he was. So we needed some help to get to know who he was. The interesting thing about it was Jake said I'll meet with him. I'll talk to him. But if he tells you that I have grounds for not guilty by mental disease or defect, he says we are not proceeding that way. I am pleading guilty. And as the court knows, we did all this in a really rapid fashion because Jake did not give us any room, any wiggle room to do anything. We were reading 20 terabytes and looking at videos around the clock. We were, we worked, you know, weekends and nights and we didn't have a choice. But there's some great things that we learned from Dr. Van Rybrook. One of the things he indicated to us was that Jake's criminal actions were not part of an escalating behavior that arose from his childhood or adolescence. And as you may or may not know, the bulk of our work for Charlie and I are chapter 980 cases and we deal with experts in many diagnoses. And one of the things that means is that his conduct cannot be described as that based upon antisocial or psychopathic behavior. He doesn't meet the criteria for either of those because in order for those to exist, it would have had to have an onset before the age of 15. And since there's no onset of anything before the age of 15 in terms of antisocial behavior or criminal activity, he can't be diagnosed with either of those. Beyond that, the important things that we learned is he did show remorse even to Dr. Van Rybrook during that time as many times that he cried during the interviews. But one of the things we also learned, not only from Jake's, we learned it from Jake's family, but Dr. Van Rybrook was willing, was able to pull it out. And we learned that the prominent theme concerning Jake was a lifetime of social isolation. A social isolation that Jake couldn't explain to anyone. He couldn't explain why it happened. Early on in his life, he started, you know, he had friends, he hung out with friends, but he'd start to withdraw even at an early age. And one of the things that really pushed him over, which I find intriguing, was he started to wear glasses. Now, other kids wear glasses, but he became very emotional about that. It became something that he wore as almost an albatross around his neck and he started to even withdraw further to a place where he began this place of isolation. He went to a time where he started to think about something else and he wanted to join the Marines. And that was one time that he wanted to step outside of that place of isolation. And he did join and he did head off to boot camp, but they found some type of an ailment which forced them to allow, to indicate he had to go home. He comes home and returns to the place of isolation. One of the things that Dr. Van Rybrook told us was that it was this isolating behavior that led really to these offenses. And it was an interesting phrase that was in something that Dr. Van Rybrook shared with us that we wrote down. He said that Jake experienced what could be termed derealized or depersonalized or depersonalized or depersonalized mental states where the stress of his life culminated in a desperate singular action to produce relief from everything he had been avoiding. And in his detached mind state, he found a solution to his lifelong aimlessness. He went on to share with Attorney Glenn and shared with us that Jake severely overreacted to his loneliness and resulted in disconnection from most people due to a self-imposed isolating behaviors. And his criminal actions were a desperate attempt to inject some meaning into his life and give him a reason to live without regard to the harm it would cause others. So as he wrote to the reporter, the reasons for this were very complicated, many of which he didn't understand himself. The last factor you have to consider is the need to protect the public. He doesn't have AODA issues. He doesn't have a track record of criminal offenses. If you take this away other than the isolationism that he lives at home and really doesn't leave much, he doesn't have anything. But he does have issues that need to be addressed. This isolationism, it led to these offenses and we're not minimizing these offenses. He has a rehabilitative need. He has some treatment needs that really need to be addressed. That if he's even not addressed, he'll have a hard time adjusting even to the prison setting. He's entitled to 134 days of sentence credit from January 10, 2019 to May 24, 2019. Former Attorney General Janet Reno once said, "The keystone to justice is the belief that the legal system treats all fairly." Bobby Kennedy once said, "The glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the Constitution nor by the courts, nor by the officers of the law, nor by the lawyers, but by the men and women who constitute our society, who are the protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law." Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both." A great quote I read said, "Let's not forget that the purpose of the criminal justice system is both to rehabilitate and to punish. But if we can rehabilitate somebody, that is a huge win for our system." Charlie's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, once said, "I've always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." It's been a hard case for us. It's been a hard case for us. We began this case, I drugged Charlie into this case, he had just had a knee replacement surgery. And we ended this case two days ago, three days ago, I attended the funeral of Charlie's mother. It's been a tough case for us along the way. It's been a tough case for our client, for his family, for Jamie, and for her family. It's been a tough case for District Attorney Wright. We've taken this case very seriously. We're thankful to Sheriff Chris Fitzgerald and his staff. They have been extraordinary to us, to Jake, and to Jake's family. We're thankful to Polk County and Dunn County Jails for their professionalism and the way they treat our client. We're thankful that you left the doors open so that we and Attorney Wright could work through whatever issues. But when it's all said and done, you have to balance those factors I shared with you. And you have to decide what's best for all. The Constitution of the United States of America is the second greatest document ever written. There's a phrase that has resonated in my heart since I was a little boy and I decided that this was the profession for me. That phrase with liberty and justice for all. Jake Patterson told us on January 13th that he was never getting out. Two very seasoned attorneys know that Jake Patterson is never getting out. But no homicide has ever proceeded so quickly through the system. No case of this magnitude has ever been handled so expeditiously. No defendant has ever moved at this rate of speed to resolve a case. So the issue of whether he has taken responsibility, I need the record to be clear. When Charlie and I started practicing law in the late '80s, early '90s, we were trained that it is an effective assistance of counsel to allow a client to plead guilty to first-degree intentional homicide without a plea agreement on the table. When Jake decided to plead guilty, there was no plea agreement on the table. So based upon what we were taught and trained, we were going to try this case. The only reason we didn't try this case, and it's 20 terabytes of discovery, is because Jake Patterson would not allow us to. He saved this county the cost of housing him in county jails any longer. He saved the county the cost of a sequestered jury from another county for three to six weeks or maybe longer. And he saved all the families the anguish of a trial. He has rehabilitative needs. And for those reasons, Your Honor, we make the following request for a sentence. As to count one, first-degree intentional homicide, we request that the court sentence Jake to life, but to give him an extended supervision date in the year 2072. In 2072, Jake will be about 75 years old. We request that the court give Jake the same sentence as to count two concurrently. As to count three, we request that the court sentence Jake to the maximum of 25 years initial confinement and 15 years extended supervision. At that time, Jake will be 100 years old. His life expectancy is not 100 years old. It's not 100 years. In other words, as he told us on January 13th, as we've known throughout the course of this case, he would die in prison. But that sentence gives him a chance to work on his issues, to somewhat be rehabilitated, to have some level of respect and quality within the prison system, to get the services that he needs, and that the goal of rehabilitation attached to a sentence of punishment, affords him, and that he's entitled to. Thank you. [01:39:06] Speaker 1: Mr. Patterson, is there anything you wish to tell the court before I impose sentence? [01:39:11] Speaker 13: Yeah. I'll just say that I would do, like, absolutely anything to take back what I did, you know. I mean, I would die. I would do absolutely anything to bring them back, you know. I don't care about me. I just -- I'm just so sorry. That's all. [01:39:59] Speaker 12: That's it, Your Honor. That's it. Yes, sir. [01:40:02] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:40:32] Speaker 1: I would start out to the family of James, Denise, and Jamie Closs. You know, it would be inaccurate for me to say that I understand what you're going through. The magnitude of these crimes is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend. All I can really say is I'm sorry for what you have endured. I would be remiss if I did not emphasize what has been obvious, and it's been spoken today in some manner, that James and Denise Closs did what good parents do. Everything they could do, even giving up their lives to protect their daughter on the night she was kidnapped. As I read the victim impact statements that were contained in the pre-sentence investigation and what I heard today, I wrote down some phrases that were contained in those statements, such as horrifying memory, one big living nightmare, lives ripped apart, could not grieve properly with Jamie missing. You know, I wish that the justice system could make you whole again. I wish we could go back in time to make sure that James and Denise Closs were never murdered, nor Miss Closs kidnapped. But I in the system can't do that for you. At best, it is my hope that today's hearing will bring you some bit of closure to this awful nightmare, and perhaps some return of a sense of safety and security. A number of years ago, I read a book, it's a historical fiction novel called A Threat of Grace by Mary Doria Russell. And it's about the Nazis committing multiple atrocities against Italians and Jews in the latter years of World War II. And near the end of that book, there's a rabbi who is one of the main participants in the novel. And he said there's a saying in Hebrew, "No matter how dark the tapestry God weaves for us, there's always a threat of grace." And the rabbi pointed out that in Italy, the threat of grace was that many Italians risked their lives to save almost 50,000 Jews from the Nazis. And in this particular nightmare, in this dark tapestry, the threat of grace is that for 88 days, when Miss Jamie Closs was missing, her family and the community joined together to search for her in their shared hope that she was still alive. Mr. Jones, one of my favorite phrases is liberty and justice for all. It's on a framed poster as I walk into the courtroom every day. And I point that out because that's what I'm here for, is to see that justice is done. I have considered the pre-sentence investigation, and I'm going to give some facts from it in a bit. The statements of the victims, both written and oral. The statement of Mr. Patterson, the arguments of counsel. Wisconsin law requires me to consider three main factors. The first being the gravity of the offense and the nature of the offense. First-degree intentional homicide is the most serious crime under Wisconsin law. Mr. Patterson, you intentionally murdered two innocent parents, parents trying to protect their daughter. You did so in a way that you forcibly and violently entered their house and kidnapped Miss Closs. And I know, Mr. Jones, you talked about our Constitution. The Fourth Amendment guarantees everyone in our country the sanctity and safety of their homes. That is one of those rights that we hold sacrosanct. It is paramount in our country. And not even police can go into someone's home without a judge giving them that permission. And so when we talk about constitutional rights, that was a right that you violated of these people. And not only is it a right under the Constitution and under our law, but you also stole a sense of security from this family. In fact, one of the things Ms. Kloss wrote in her statement was that loss of safety, even though she is back with her family. That you can't be home where you're supposed to be safe. That's where she'd like to be. And I consider that an aggravating factor. I also consider as an aggravating factor that you planned this. You had a mask. You stole a license plate so that you could not be discovered. I consider as an aggravating factor is that you murdered Ms. Kloss's parents. You were sitting within feet of her or right next to her. There's been discussion of your character. It is clearly unusual for me to have someone come to court for any crime, much less a serious crime, and have no prior record. You have no criminal record. You have no juvenile record. You have no history of drug and alcohol issues. There's no evidence that you are under the influence of any alcohol and drugs. The PSI notes that you have what I would say alarmingly distorted views. The PSI writer says anti-social cognitions. For all of this, I have no idea if there's any treatment. I heard what your lawyer said about the psychiatrist or psychologist who met with you. I don't know how he came to any of his conclusions. I've never seen his report. But your actions and the ideas that you had are not normal. They are shockingly not normal. I have no idea what rehabilitation could be provided for you. No one suggested any rehabilitation. Because even from your own side, the doctors can't find anything wrong with you. I want to talk about the need to protect the public. I've been a lawyer for almost 40 years and a judge for the last 16 years, almost entirely in this county. And these crimes rank as the most heinous and dangerous that I have seen either here or anywhere else in the state of Wisconsin. And perhaps the United States. When I read the complaint and when I've had hearings here, it would be an understatement to say that I was shocked by the brutalness. And I've seen lots of crimes in my career. And I thought they were shocking enough. But sadly, I was wrong. The pre-sentence gives me a great deal of information about statements you made, either in writing or orally. Some statements, as I understand it, were taken from your jail cell. No one else has mentioned them today, but I have to. Because it makes a big difference in how I impose sentence. But I'm told through the pre-sentence investigation, I'm going to read from this. I started having bad thoughts all the time. Fantasies about keeping a young girl prisoner, torturing her, and totally controlling her. At first, I fought them. I had no reason to live. And doing this was the only thing I wanted, but I was Christian. Fear of hell was the only thing that was stopping me. After a while, I stopped believing in God and I stopped fighting my fantasies. I thought about it every day. [01:51:52] Speaker ?: That was the summer of 2018. Now I was just waiting for an opportunity. [01:51:53] Speaker 1: I drove around a lot, just trying to get lucky and see a girl alone. After a while, I knew that wouldn't work. I thought of how I could get away with kidnapping a girl. My biggest problem was always witnesses. I could control what I left behind as far as evidence, but not who saw me. That's when I thought of a home invasion kidnapping at night. I hadn't decided if I would kill the parents or just tie them up. It wasn't a moral problem. If I knew I killed them, it would get a lot more attention. But if I let them live there, if I left them live, there would be good witnesses. I finally decided it didn't matter how much attention it got. If I left no evidence or witnesses, it didn't matter if they sent 1,000 FBI agents, if they had nothing to go on. Before I did this, I planned on taking multiple girls, killing multiple families. I wanted to treat them differently, play mind games with them. I also just wanted to scare people. I hated everyone, but no one in particular. Everyone I actually know I liked, but I hated society as a whole. I didn't care if I died. If I could get away with having the girl for a week, it was worth dying for. When I saw Jamie, I instantly thought she would be a good target. Actually, mostly it was, she was the first girl I saw once I had those ideas in my head. Mr. Patterson, not only were you a danger to the Kloss family, you are an extreme danger to the public in general. There is no doubt in my mind that you are one of the most dangerous men to ever walk on this planet. There is talk of your remorse, but as the agent points out in the PSI, there is a difference between regret and remorse. Regret means you are sorry that you are caught, remorse means you have empathy for the victims. I have no doubt that you have regret, and I have no doubt that you have no remorse. The overriding factor in this sentencing is the protection of the public. The rest of the public deserves liberty and justice. You have had long-term thoughts prior to committing these crimes, including kidnapping multiple girls, killing multiple families, and keeping a young girl prisoner. You are the embodiment of evil. You are the embodiment of evil, and the public can only be safe if you are incarcerated until you die. Consequently, regarding count one, the court is imposing, regarding the first-degree intentional homicide of James Kloss, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the eligibility for release on extended supervision. Consecutive to count two, and on count two, the first-degree intentional homicide of Denise Kloss, I sentence you to life imprisonment without the eligibility for release on extended supervision. Consecutive to count two, and on count one, and on count three, on the kidnapping of Miss Kloss, I sentence you to the maximum of 40 years in Wisconsin State prisons, with 25 years initial incarceration and 15 years of extended supervision, consecutive to counts one and two. I also further order the mandatory lifetime registration pursuant to section 301.45 and 939.615 of the Wisconsin statutes. I order the mandatory DNA sample in court costs. I designate Dodge Correctional as the reception center. Mr. Wright, is there anything you believe I've overlooked? [01:57:13] Speaker 3: No, Your Honor. [01:57:14] Speaker 1: And Mr. Glynn or Mr. Jones, anything you believe I've overlooked today? Mr. Patterson, under Wisconsin law, because you're convicted of the felonies, you may not vote in this state, and you may not possess any firearms. I will give your lawyers written copies. They'll go through those with you down in the jail. Anything else? And then we'll send the appellate rights down, too, so you can go through them with them. We'll give you those documents. All right, we're adjourned. [01:57:53] Speaker ?: All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. [01:57:53] Speaker 1: All right, we're adjourned. [01:57:54] Speaker ?: All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned. All right, we're adjourned.