Todd Kendhammer Trial Sentencing Hearing

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: The Honorable Todd Bierke is presiding. Silence is commanded. [00:00:06] Speaker 1: Please be seated. Right. Today is time set for sentencing this matter. There is a pre-sentence investigation completed by Barbara Wench, filed on February 28th. Have both parties received that? Yes. Yes. Any changes, corrections, or comments to the contents of that document, Mr. Grinke? No, Your Honor. Mr. Benarek? [00:00:32] Speaker 2: I just have a couple of corrections, I guess they're probably coined as corrections, Judge. On page 7, I'm actually at the very top in the first partial paragraph. The agent reports that, and she's referencing the interview that Mr. Kenhammer conducted here with the Sheriff's Department, she indicated that at a point, defendant's voice became elevated to the point where jail staff came into the room to make sure there weren't any problems. My recollection, and I know that you were obviously here and saw that as well, my recollection is that that's not why jail staff came into the room to check if there was problems. It was actually that I think they came in because Jordan Kenhammer was present, and I believe that the officer alerted the other officers of his presence. So, it's a minor point, but I believe that that's not why an officer came in. [00:01:33] Speaker 1: I took this as him talking with Ms. Wench at the time in the jail, and not during the interview of him and the officers. Maybe I'm wrong on that. [00:01:46] Speaker 2: That is not how I took it. I don't believe that Mr. Kenhammer discussed the offense of conviction at all with the agent. It's my understanding that that was. [00:01:58] Speaker 1: Okay, well, if you read the whole paragraph starting on page six, it says when Mr. Kenhammer was asked about the date of the offense, he goes on and talks about this stuff, and he gets to the point where he stops the questioning and saying he should talk to the attorney, and then he gets the note from your office saying not to talk about the particular facts of the case, which is his right, and I don't know if you offered the transcript there, and then you had comments that the transcript, your knowledge, was not reviewed by the agent. So, I took this all as his interactions with her. Fair enough. [00:02:30] Speaker 2: On page 16, Judge, there was, on the bottom portion under agent's comments, the second paragraph. [00:02:40] Speaker 1: Let me get there. Hold on. [00:02:41] Speaker 2: Okay. It references Mr. Kenhammer working at A-1 Glass while in high school in 1984. He left at one point and went and worked at Glass Service Center but then returned to A-1 Glass. I think that that's incorrect. I don't believe that he ever returned to A-1 Glass. He went on to work at Glass Service Center during that time. It's a minor point, but technically a factual correction. That's fine. Okay. And then finally, Judge, on page 17, the following page, again, towards the bottom, under financial and agent comments, the agent is discussing, and I'll just read verbatim, he and his wife, in the second sentence, he and his wife would remodel houses as a hobby and would pay the bills for those jobs in cash. It's my understanding, and I believe there is testimony to this effect, that Seven Bridges Bank was the bank that financed the home remodels that Barbara and Todd Kenhammer did. It wasn't cash, it was bank finance, not cash. That's all I have by way of correction to the pre-sentence report. [00:03:55] Speaker 1: All right, thank you. All right, the court's reviewed that document. The court also reviewed the brief in support of Mr. Kenhammer's sentencing recommendation. I think that was signed by Mr. Hurley, is that right? [00:04:10] Speaker 2: Either himself or myself. With electronic filing, it's just a... I know. [00:04:14] Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I have... I think you're correct, Judge. Signed electronically by Mr. Hurley. Yep, so I reviewed that. There was also an attachment A with numerous statements, and I also reviewed that. The state didn't file anything at this point, correct? Correct, Honor. And besides those, Mr. Benarik, is there anything else that I should be looking at before we proceed? [00:04:40] Speaker 2: No, I can tell you that there are four individuals that would like to make statements on behalf of Mr. Kenhammer. They're all very brief statements. [00:04:50] Speaker 1: Fine, what I normally will do is have the state present anyone they have first, then your witnesses, and then we'll hear counsel. Okay, fair. Mr. Greenkey, do you have anyone used to present today? Yes. Okay, for the record, would you please state your name? [00:05:06] Speaker 3: Jerry Ann Buchner-Wettstein. [00:05:10] Speaker 1: Would you like to state today? [00:05:12] Speaker 3: Good day, Your Honor. My name is Jerry Ann Buchner-Wettstein, and I am one of Barbara Kenhammer's first cousins. I am here today, I do not stand alone, but unified with my siblings, who live in various areas across the United States. From the North, my sisters, Sandra Buchner-Wettstein, and Michelle Buchner-Eby. From the South, my brother, Thomas James Buchner. From the Southeast, my sister, Dana Buchner-Davies. And lastly, from the Northwest, my sister, Angela Buchner-Young. We have co-created this letter, guided by the courage and strength of our first cousin, Barbara Carol Adams-Kendhammer. Joyce, her mom, is our aunt. David, her brother, is our cousin as well. And Michael Service, Barb's son-in-law, works at our family's plumbing business. We are family, too, with heavy hearts and compassion for all involved. That being said, we are compelled to stand up for Barbara so justice can be served and her soul can rest in peace. I am here today to address this court because it was proven in this very courtroom that Barbara was murdered, and today her murderer will be sentenced for this crime. It was also proven that Barbara did not die in a freak accident, but instead courageously fought with her last breath to stay alive. The marks, as well as the blood left inside and outside the car, indicate a violent struggle occurred prior to her brutal death. Especially concerning are the scratches on her assailant's neck and chest which compel us to write this letter and face Barbara's murderer on her behalf. Those very scratch marks were her last communication to those of us in this world so we would seek the truth about her death, no matter how painful that truth might be. Barbara found the courage that day to fight back. Therefore, we stand here today, united with that same courage, asking you to sentence her killer to the maximum penalty possible. Barbara Carol Adams was born March 4, 1970, to proud parents and a protective big brother. She was born March 5, 1970, to proud parents and a protective mother. She was the apple of her daddy's eye. He adored her. She thrived with her infectious laugh and big blue eyes. Her mom, Joyce, is an outstanding cook, and Barbara picked up those culinary skills naturally. Barb loved the outdoors and just about any kind of animal. Growing up, our families were close. We spent many get-togethers around a fire roasting marshmallows and laughing at their family's farmstead in West Salem. Barb grew up into a beautiful young woman who worked hard while at the same time always looked impeccably put together. She married and started a family. She took great pride in being a mom, and she loved her children very, very much. Her home was meticulous. She cooked homemade meals. She was a timely and exceptional worker at West Salem Middle School, all the while fulfilling her roles as daughter, sister, mom, grandmother, niece, cousin, aunt, friend, co-worker, and community member. Barb was one who was always willing to lend a hand to whoever needed it. She enjoyed lawn work, gardening, decorating, and crafts. Becoming a grandma to sweet Carlin, her little peanut, was one of Barbara's most treasured and blessed moments. She was an absolute bliss when she was with her. After her dad, babe, passed, Barbara took extra special care of her mom. You would see them out shopping together. Barbara stopped at her home regularly to check in on her. Barbara included her mom in activities with her family as well as talking with her almost daily on the phone. They had the kind of relationship that would make most mothers and daughters envious. You could see and feel the joy and love they shared in each other's company. As we watched the trial unfold, our hearts were broken when we learned there were seats saved for anyone who would sit in support of Barbara. But no one did for the entire nine days. All the while, the seats in support of her murderer overflowed. They say silence is violence. One cannot blame Barbara for not confiding in anyone about her fear for her safety. As we have sadly seen, who would have believed her? Who would have stood up for her? Know that in spirit, we believe, Barbara and her father, Merlin Babe Adams, filled those seats behind the state, guiding the state as well as the jury, painstakingly revealing the truth about her murder. Many in Barbara's extended family did not come here during the trial out of disbelief. No one wants to believe that someone who professes to love you could also be capable of brutally beating you to death with their bare hands. The horror of knowing she suffered terribly while being strangled and having her skull fractured by her assailant is gut-wrenching. We cannot help but wonder, was she crying out? Was she begging for her life? We do know she was fighting and clawing to stay a dutiful daughter and sister, loving mother and grandmother, trusted co-worker and friend. This is not to say Todd Kenhammer is beyond redemption for his crime of the violent murder of his wife and mother of his children, Barbara Kenhammer. But the only clear pathway for her death would be if he tells the truth about what happened that day, accepts responsibility and accountability for his part in Barbara's death, and seeks forgiveness. There is not one of us here today that has not experienced anger or rage in our lifetime. But to blatantly and repeatedly lie to family, friends, co-workers, and law enforcement requires him to serve the full penalty for his crime. We ask the court this day to sentence him to life in prison. Sincerely, Jerry Ann Buchner-Wettstein, Sandra Buchner-Aldin, Thomas James Buchner, Angela Buchner-Young, Michelle Buchner-Eby, Dana Buchner-Davies. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:09] Speaker 4: Thank you. [00:14:11] Speaker 3: Yes, you can. [00:14:13] Speaker 1: That's all we'll have, Your Honor. Very well. Mr. Benarik, if you wish to call on the individuals to talk. [00:14:20] Speaker 2: I do. I would ask that Michael Service speak first. [00:14:24] Speaker 1: And state your name for the record and spell your last name. [00:14:27] Speaker 5: Michael Service. Last name is S-E-R-V-A-I-S. [00:14:32] Speaker 1: All right, Mr. Service, what would you like to state today? [00:14:36] Speaker 5: My name is Michael Service. I'm Todd's son-in-law. I've known Todd for about eight years. He has always been kind, caring, giving, and willing to help out with anything anybody has ever asked him to help out with. I feel it would be appropriate for the court to grant Todd possible parole after the minimum 20-year sentence. Thank you. [00:15:14] Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Service. [00:15:17] Speaker 4: Patricia Kendhammer, Judge. [00:15:20] Speaker 1: If you'd state your name and spell your last name. [00:15:23] Speaker 4: My name is Patricia Kendhammer. K-E-N-D-H-A-M-M-E-R. [00:15:33] Speaker 1: What would you like to say today? [00:15:36] Speaker 4: I am Todd's mother. I am in touch with Todd and have been able to observe Todd and his family over the years. What I have seen is a good husband who cared deeply for his wife. A good father who was interested and involved in the lives of his children, Jessica and Jordan. A man who loves his family, a man who helps others, who will come over to help me anytime for anything. This is why we all support Todd. This is why we will continue to support Todd and hope that we will be able to return him home at some point in time in the future. Thank you. [00:16:22] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:16:28] Speaker 2: Thank you. David Adams, Judge. [00:16:33] Speaker 1: State your name and spell your last name. [00:16:35] Speaker 6: David Adams. A-D-A-M-S. [00:16:39] Speaker 1: What would you like to say today, Mr. Adams? [00:16:45] Speaker 6: I'm David Adams, Todd's brother-in-law, Barbara's brother. And I'd like to say that Todd is a kind, caring man who I have never seen behave poorly or in a controlling manner toward anyone. And I would like to ask you to allow Todd to be able to ask for parole after 20 years. I ask of this for myself and my mother, who was unable to attend today. [00:17:18] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:17:19] Speaker 3: Thank you. [00:17:21] Speaker 2: And finally, Judge Jessica Servis. [00:17:26] Speaker 1: Please state your name for the record and spell your last name. [00:17:29] Speaker 7: Jessica Servis, S-E-R-V-A-I-S. [00:17:33] Speaker 1: What would you like to say today? [00:17:38] Speaker 7: My name is Jessica Servis, and I am Todd and Barb's proud daughter. I will not repeat what I said in my letter that I submitted to you earlier, but I completely stand by everything I said in it. My dad is an amazing, kind, and caring person. And he has been nothing but kind and caring to anyone he meets for my entire life. He was a very doting husband to my mom, and I feel I speak for her, myself, my brother, the rest of my family, and our many supportive friends and neighbors when I ask you for your consideration in my dad's eligibility for parole in 20 years. Please understand that my parents were a very big part of our lives, and we would like the opportunity to share more of our lives with my dad. Thank you. [00:18:33] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Service. All right. Before I hear from counsel, I'll just indicate that the other letters that I reviewed were from Jessica Servis, Jordan Kendhammer, Joyce Adams, Lori, I believe it's Harkin, Tom and Shelley Servis, David Adams, John Kendhammer, Bill Kendhammer, Patricia Kendhammer, Lisa Selberg, Rob and Ruthie Olson, Connie Hicks, Sue Ratty, Tina McCoy, Mary Sanders, Tom Wysocki, Cassie Petronic, Roderine, Harlan and Marianne Hicks, Danella Zaraver, Crystal Burroughs, and Kelly Burroughs. All right. Counselor, ready to argue? Yes, Your Honor. Can Mr. Grinke go ahead? [00:19:44] Speaker 8: Your Honor, the defense filed a sentencing brief that spelled out all the sentencing factors that the court has to consider. I'm not going to repeat them. I think the court's also well aware of those sentencing factors. To start with, you heard a statement from Jerry Ann Wettstein, and I think she covered many of the things that I would probably repeat. I probably can't say it better than she did. I think she hit the nail on the head when it comes to what this case is really about. It's not a popularity contest. It's not about how many people say that you did nice things or how many people say that you've always been nice to them. It's about what happened on this day that Barbara was killed, and it's unfortunate that many people just seem to ignore the evidence and the facts and focus on their experiences with the defendant, as if to say that if he's been nice before, he can't commit a murder. And I know that this court has seen many, many defendants that are very nice people in our court. They're responsible. They're appropriate. They're polite. Many defendants I prosecuted are fine with me and polite and nice and hard workers and do nice things, but it doesn't take away from what they did. And we're not here to judge Mr. Canhamer's life as if it's some kind of score sheet of how many people have you helped or how many people were you nice to. Those people didn't see what was happening on Bergen-Cooley Road on that morning. Only two people know what happened, and Barbara Canhamer is dead, and Todd Canhamer has done nothing but lie from day one about what happened. Some of the biggest factors that I think the court should base a sentence on would be the gravity of this offense, Mr. Canhamer's character, and the need for punishment, or some people call it retribution in this case, given the gravity of the offense. In my closing argument, I listed all of Barbara's injuries, and I'm not going to do that again now. But when you look at the number of injuries that she had, people cannot go on believing that there was some sort of phantom truck that dropped a pipe, that floated, that caused these injuries. The main injuries were to the back of her head, and pipe doesn't do that because it's coming through the windshield. She had a broken nose, bruises on her face, on her arms, on her hands, torn fingernails. She had scratches on her neck, a skull fracture on the back of her head. She died a horrible death, a beating. She did not die suddenly. She did not die immediately. She died apparently fighting for her life, scratching and clawing for her life, with her killer, her husband, who she probably trusted and loved, and didn't expect that he would do that to her. This was a horrible death. And a comment about domestic violence, it's true that Mr. Kanhammer does not have an arrest record. He does not have any criminal record at all. He does not have a history of domestic violence. But what I find odd is the number of people that think because they were nice at parties together that everything was fine. We know from domestic violence and from just life in general, plenty of people look fine in public and things are not fine behind the scenes. The fact that he wasn't mean to you or wasn't mean to Barbara in front of you doesn't mean that he was good to her. When I read the letters about their relationship and the court or some of that at trial, that he would drive her to work, pick her up from work, text her while she was at work, come home from deer camp to be with her. In letters we read about how he would go shopping with her. If this isn't a controlling relationship, I don't know what one would look like. He was constantly checking up on her, checking where she was. I don't think she had a choice but to be with him. And Jerry and Westein said it very well and, I mean, repeat it, the people that are supporting Todd don't believe the physical evidence that's right in front of their eyes that we presented at trial. Why would they have believed Barb if she had said just verbally, there's a problem in our relationship? The people that put Todd on a pedestal and put their marriage on a pedestal, how would she have gone to them and said, you know, things aren't so good? Or he doesn't give me the freedom that I want. Or he is controlling. They wouldn't have believed her and she would have gotten the backlash that you see now. So it's no wonder that this wasn't out in the open. Very few domestic violence cases are. And I know this court has seen time and time again people in court that are charged with domestic violence where people that know the person say, well, he's never been violent. He's a good father. I don't think he could do this. He's not violent. I mean, we know what happens. We've had it on video. We've had guilty pleas. So even when you know it's happening, people still will deny that people could possibly have this in them. The defendant has, from the beginning, told lies to law enforcement. When he testified at trial, he had very few answers for the stories that he told. And I won't go through all of the evidence at the trial because the court heard all that. But he has repeatedly perceived himself as a victim of society, forgetting that the victim here was Barbara. She was the one who had the injuries. And he has made this crime more severe by scapegoating, manipulating, lying to his family, to police, to the court, to the jury. This is not some great conspiracy. He has, at different times, blamed, of course, me as a prosecutor. That's fairly common. The police somehow have conspired against him for no reason. The crime lab, down in Madison, must have somehow also got in on trying to convict an innocent person. DCI, Wisconsin State Patrol, the Department of Corrections, he thinks Barb Wench is just against him. Dr. McCubbin, the jurors, of course, were biased. This week, there was a motion filed. They said the judge was biased against him. And, of course, the media just was out to get him. To think that all these people, professionals from different areas of the state, different departments, different divisions, all the case from different angles would somehow just decide on their own to just convict an innocent person is just not believable. But you see the pattern here that it's all about him. He's a very self-centered, narcissistic person who thinks everybody's out to get him. If people would take just a couple seconds to think about the level of that conspiracy, they would think that, you know, maybe some of these professionals got something right. Maybe there's some evidence here. Maybe we should check this again instead of just believing he couldn't do this because I've seen him be nice to people. After the verdict, this conspiracy was so ingrained that the family members of Mr. Canhamer physically attacked the media. And, as I said in my response to the recusal motion, this case has had less articles written about it than any of the other cases I've been involved in of this type. Far less. And what was written was factual. There were no editorials, opinions. The DA's office didn't have any press conferences. The Sheriff's Department didn't. There were records released to the media, and they reported on what happened. Now, if that makes him look guilty, that's probably because he is guilty. Because his story makes no sense, and people in lacrosse don't believe it. But the media, who work every day trying to make their stories accurate, don't have any reason to go after the family. They don't have any reason to say he's guilty if he's not. And they were physically attacked because it's all about scapegoating and blaming someone else. It can't be him. It's got to be someone else's fault. He never will face up to what he did. The reason that people who read media articles or people who work in these different departments believe he's guilty is the evidence, I think, was pretty overwhelming. No one that's objective is going to believe that you can punch a car's windshield while you're driving with your left hand, that a pipe would float through the air to the passenger side of the vehicle, come through the windshield, make two marks in the windshield, strike her in the back of the front, cause all the other injuries to her, and then somehow the defendant would just have no story that makes sense about what happened. That Randy Erler would drive by and see nobody in the car and the windshield not crashed. These are not facts that people made up. These are the facts that are in the case. And when people see it, they say that doesn't really make a lot of sense. His story probably isn't true. And that's not bias or being out to get him. That's just following the evidence, looking at it objectively, and coming to a conclusion that seems fairly obvious to most people. And I think, unfortunately, the family, while they're trying to be supportive, are just feeding into his delusions. The people that have been supportive of him, that testified at trial, never asked the obvious questions. Where was he going that morning? He first told police that he was going to see Justin Heim. When he was told that's not possible, it changed to a friend, Ben Paff. When that wasn't possible at trial, for the first time, he came up with Jared Logging. And that's not possible. Jared Logging's truck was parked out in his lawn. If he really was looking for him, he would have found him. And no one wants to ask that. And I understand they might not want to hear the answer. They might not want to face the truth. But they also didn't ask, well, why was Barb there at 8 o'clock in the morning when she was supposed to be at work? The defendant didn't have an answer at trial for that. At trial, when I asked him, you were driving around looking for somebody you didn't know, or you didn't know where they lived. And he said, correct. He shouldn't be surprised if people aren't going to believe that because it doesn't make any sense. The family members never asked him how he got scratches on his neck. Why there was grass in the trunk. Why were injuries so severe. Fairly obvious questions that anybody would ask. And if you don't want to know those answers, if you don't want to ask those tough questions, that's fine. Be supportive of him. But don't be mad at the people who do ask those questions because it's their job to ask those questions and try to do justice for the woman who was killed, Barbara. Pardon my language, but to be perfectly frank, they need to get their head out of their ass. They need to start looking at this in reality and not Mr. Kenhammer's delusional world where pipes will fly and medias will conspire and police will frame innocent people because that's not what happened here. The defense in their brief asked for the 20-year eligibility for parole, which is the minimum, because it would give him some hope and allow him rehabilitation for the future. But in order to have rehabilitation, you have to admit to what you did. Mr. Kenhammer, I'm convinced, will never admit to what he did. He will live in his world of victimization and scapegoating and continue to further victimize Barb's family. He will not allow them closure. He will continue to waste their money, their time, their energy, their resources, their emotions. Instead of coming clean, telling people what happened so that they can heal, they can move on. And I think that aggravates the crime. He certainly should not be punished for having a trial. It's his constitutional right. But he does not have a right to lie. He doesn't have a right to manipulate. He lied to the jury. He tried to get away with the crime. He tried to get away with the most serious crime. He did not give Barbara any mercy. When she was injured in that car, when she was bleeding for whatever reason, when Randy Erler drove by, he didn't ask for help. He hit her down in the ditch. She had evidence of strangulation, evidence of smothering her. And he tried to hide the crime by staging an accident and claiming that this fanciful notion of a pipe flying is what really happened. All those things aggravate the crime, and it will continue through this day into the future. And I think that's an aggravating factor the court should consider. He did not show Barbara any mercy. I don't think he deserves any mercy at this point. I ask the court to give him life in prison without the possibility of any release. That's all I have. [00:33:13] Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Benarek, are you going to speak? [00:33:17] Speaker 2: I am. Thank you. Going into a sentencing hearing like this is different than most. And it's different in that the legislature in Wisconsin has told you, told us, told Mr. Kenthammer what you must do. It remains then only one issue in this case. It's not should Mr. Kenthammer be sentenced to life in prison. He shall be sentenced to life in prison. It's not should Mr. Kenthammer pay a fine like most criminal convictions require. There is no fine in this case. We've stipulated that there remains no restitution. The sole issue in the case and what you must decide today is should Todd be able to come back, petition this or some other court in an interval of time that is not less than 20 years, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he should be granted extended supervision. Not that he should be given extended supervision. Simply that he should be able to come back and ask a review in court, can I get extended supervision? That's the only issue today. The state says never, ever. The defense says 20 years. 20 years is an exceedingly long time. And for anybody to say that in that 20-year interval, Todd Kenthammer is beyond the ability or capability to rehabilitate is, in my opinion, flawed logic. I'm not going to do what the state said they weren't going to do, which is regurgitate the facts of the case. We all were here. We sat through the two-week trial. We all know what the facts were. We should talk about things that we don't necessarily know about going into the trial and coming through the trial. And there are a number of things that, in my opinion, cut in favor of a determination of extended supervision at 20 years. Todd has no history whatsoever of criminal conduct. And we heard not even a parking ticket on Todd's record. Empirical data, researchers, studies will tell you that a strong indicator of recidivism is criminal history. And it cannot be disputed that there is none. And not just criminal history, any history negative with law enforcement. It just doesn't exist in Todd's situation. The verdict in the case clearly represents an abhorrent act. But that abhorrent act is, again, in my opinion, well outside of the character that Mr. Kendhammer has exhibited his entire life. I won't and didn't purposefully put people on the stand today to rehash exactly what they told you in the, I don't know, 15 or 17 letters that were submitted to the court. But these are people that have had long, consistent and routine contact with Todd, Barbara, the extended family. And they all describe the same man. They describe a man who was caring, was loving, was helpful, was a hard worker. His employment history is stellar. The character of Mr. Kendhammer that is described to you in the submissions to the court is very much different than the verdict in the case. And that has to be taken into consideration when we ask ourselves, is he capable, potentially capable, in 20 years, of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he's a suitable person for extended supervision. You know, interestingly enough as well, Judge, and I know that you've sat, I presume you've sat on many, many trials, and I have too, one of the things that the defense is always on their toes for is bad act evidence, character evidence that comes in. There was no effort by the state in this situation to introduce any character evidence. And the reason being is because there is none that would have been helpful for the case. They looked. But it's, I think, a unique situation in a trial like this that didn't exhibit any character evidence on the part of the state. These friends, these family members, these co-workers, they've provided these letters to the court, which certainly support the suggestion that I'm making to you today. The other thing that was noticeably absent, and in my opinion, is very much supportive of an eligibility date, is the compass scoring in the pre-sentence report. Now, compass scoring is not something that we've been dealing with for a whole lot of years, but it's something that we've seen for a while. And this is not just voodoo logic. These are research-studied tests that attempt to do a lot of things to guide courts, and recidivism risk is one of them. But there's all manner of predictions that they try to make with compass scoring. The compass scoring in this case shows that he's a very low risk to the community. The only item of the, I don't know, 15 or so items that are encompassed in compass scoring is the current violence, and that obviously is because of the nature of the offense. Everything else, unlikely, unlikely, low, low, low, low, unlikely, unlikely, unlikely. The compass scoring cuts in favor of a parole and extended supervision eligibility date. Todd Kinnamer has a very supportive family, and the state, for obvious reasons, contorts that to say, well, he's deceived, and we shouldn't count on that support. Again, though, empirically, if we're asking ourselves, is somebody a suitable candidate to ask a court, many years in the future, 20 years in the future, a supporting and helpful family is an extremely important component. If it were the other way, if he had no supporting helpful family, you can bet dollars to donuts that the state would say he's got no support network whatsoever. Again, this cuts in favor of an eligibility date. We need to keep in mind that this doesn't mean he will be released in 20 years. It simply means, can he come back to this or some other court and ask for that release? To do what the state is suggesting you do, suggests that they can predict that he can't meet that burden. And that life without parole, without release, is necessary to satisfy the galleon factors. I don't believe that's true. I don't believe that's true for one second. And the galleon factors require a punishment no more severe than necessary. And that seems more severe than necessary under these circumstances. I would be remiss in my obligations, though, as well, to point out that it is not just the state who is completely disposed of the notion of rehabilitation. The pre-sentence itself, it too, suggests that we are not in a situation where Mr. Kenhammer is capable of rehabilitation. And it does the same thing the state did, is it ignores the other empirical data that's available in the case, the compass scoring. In fact, it itself, I think, you have to look on page 25, it itself says that the writer didn't believe that he intended to kill his wife. It ignores the chapter 950 victims in the case. It obviously, as it's required to do, includes their statements and their opinions in the substance. But in reaching its conclusion, it discounts them entirely. In my opinion, it makes little or no effort to align its ultimate conclusion with the circumstances and those realities. Todd's conduct during the pendency of this case, while he was released on bail, while he sat here at trial, all exemplary. And I realize that that's what we'd expect. But we can bet if it weren't, that would be something that would certainly be pointed out to you. I know Todd well. I think I know him better than anybody else in front of the bar in this case. I've certainly had more contact with him. And there was one thing that happened during the course of this trial that was, I don't know what the right adjective is, it was meaningful to me. And it speaks to me, and I think it should speak to the court, about his character. And it's hard for me to talk about, because it involves my family. And I lost my father during the pendency of this trial. And Todd knew that. Every morning, we'd come to court, and the first thing out of Todd's mouth is, Jonas, how's your dad? He thought of me first, of my struggle, over his struggle. And that comports with what you're being told in all of these letters. He put my feelings in front of his. That's not a man that's beyond repair. Not in my opinion. That's not the behavior of an individual who's beyond reproach. That's not the behavior of somebody that shouldn't at least be given the opportunity. Because that's, again, all we're talking about, is giving him an opportunity 20 years in the future to meet his burden for release. I'm honored to call Todd Kenthammer, my client. He's been a great client from start to finish. And I stand by the recommendations that we made to you in our sentencing memorandum. I stand by the statements that I'm making to you today. And I stand by the statements that the witnesses have provided on Todd's behalf. And I ask that you follow the recommendation of the defense. Thank you. [00:46:10] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Benarik. Kenthammer, at this time, do you wish to address the court? [00:46:20] Speaker 9: I do it, Your Honor. I would like to say a thank you to my family and friends for the support that they've offered and continue to offer. And I appreciate that. And I thank you for the time. [00:46:38] Speaker 1: All right. Mr. Kenthammer, is there any reason I should not then now complete sentencing? [00:46:47] Speaker ?: No. [00:46:49] Speaker 1: All right. Well, your attorney, and I don't think Mr. Grinke just agrees with this, summed up what my job is here today. I cannot do anything other than sentence you to life imprisonment. That's a given. That's the law. So the only issue here is me being silent on your ability to petition, setting a petition date or, as Mr. Grinke and Ms. Wedstein asked, deny that. That's the only issue I can do here today. And also, as indicated, I still have to look at all the same factors I would if I fashioned any other sort of sentence. Your attorney did a very nice job of putting that all together in their brief. And as he indicated, I have presided over many trials and many sentencings, and I'm fairly well familiar with all those factors. There's a lot of them, but it boils down to generally three. One is your character. And, you know, I've seen your character during the trial. Like Mr. Bedarnik said, you complied with the bond conditions that were set, behaved appropriately in the courtroom. There's nothing from that that would give me pause to think that it would be a factor against you. And I read all these letters about your character. I heard some of it during the trial. The pre-sentence investigation, a writer put a little bit of it in there, and then there's some to the contrary. But for the most part, people think of you in a very good way. I did read in some of the letters, though, that perhaps one person thinks you have hyperactivity, some compulsive type behaviors, obsessive, I guess, if you want to look at it that way. And that seems to be part and parcel with your lifestyle. There seems to be a hidden side to you. One of those letters of support indicated that when you and Barbara would argue or have some sort of disagreement, I don't remember what word it was, something, you would do it outside the presence of others, in private, showing there is a private life to you where you may resolve issues. Now, that doesn't mean you were fighting at the time. It doesn't mean you were yelling at each other or any of those things. But it did give me a glimmer of this other side. During the trial, I felt that there was a control issue with you from the testimony that came in. Showing up all the time, sort of keeping tabs on Barbara. You know, that can be part of a loving relationship and it can be part of a issue, as Mr. Grinke indicated, underlying domestic violence. All the people that are in support of you have absolutely no idea what goes beyond those closed doors with just you and Barbara throughout your marriage. They have no idea. And if she's not going to tell them, they'd have no idea at all. And here we are, ending up with this crime, this verdict. The jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, 12 of them, found that you did this. You deny you did this. And that's one of the factors, as pointed out, that would go against you being released. I agree with Mr. Grinke. If you were to come to the court and say, you know, I've gone through prison counseling, I've come to agree that this is, in fact, what I did, I've done some rehabilitation, at that point maybe you could be released. I would also wonder whether there would be that supportive family that believes in you so much and finds out that you maybe are lying to them. They may not be there at that point, if that's what happens. But we don't know. I'll go through some of these factors. I agree you have no prior record. There were some issues surrounding some employment issues. You may contest those. It was set forth in the PSI. Some is old. Your personality seems to show some sort of obsessiveness with how people think of you. That goes back to some of these old events that Ms. Winch uncovered and how she thought you were selling yourself to her, how I saw you selling yourself to the jury and to the law enforcement during the interviews. You want people to think well of you. There's nothing wrong with that per se. Some of the behaviors you should do, going out and helping people, dropping everything to go help people, shows some altruistic behaviors. But again, it can go to you wanting to look good to people, which can become an issue. How did your wife look at you at some point before this? Is that a precipitating factor to this end of her life? Nobody will know but you and her, and she can't speak. The vicious or aggravated nature of the crime speaks for itself. There's nothing much more I can say about that. To me, you snapped on that date. You lost it, committed this horrific act. Barbara's dead, and there's the cover-up thereafter. That goes to your degree of culpability. You are the one responsible for her death. That's some pipe falling off a truck. You're 47 right now. Okay. Apparently, you're appropriately educated to be where you are in life at this time. You've basically had steady employment. Those are all factors in your favor. Looking at your remorse or repentance or cooperativeness. You deny the crime. You have the right to do that. Once the appeals are done, I don't know what's going to happen at that point. I'll just indicate that counsel for both sides did an exemplary job of presenting this case. I was actually quite surprised, based on all the stipulations to the evidence coming in. Very few objections. I really don't see any issues that would be appealable in this case, but you have the right to pursue that. But once the appeal is done, then you'll be sitting there for whatever length of time to try to remedy this in your mind, in the minds of all your supporters, and in the minds of the truth. I agree the evidence was overwhelming. Your attorneys presented significant evidence. The glass expert, the jury didn't believe. The person on the mechanics, they didn't believe. The doctor, sorry, the state couldn't get the main injury straight, but accepted the evidence that the state put in. There's a consideration I have for your need for close rehabilitative control. You know, I agree with the compass that you are low risk, but those evaluations are not an end-all. Courts are not expected to adopt them blindly. I think there's some underlying behavioral health issues that may be there, whether it's domestic-related or, you know, your vanity about wanting to be liked, things like that. Those are not things that gave rise to the compass going above low risk on mental health. Those are things that can be addressed, though, in your confinement setting. You know, your past, other than these issues that affect you in some degree here, wanting to be liked, however you want to phrase that, surely don't show that you cannot be rehabilitated in some sense. Another condition is your pre-trial detention. Really, it's only from the 14th of December, and I think you have a few days prior to that. Counsel indicated the amount of credit, which is, I can't remember, but it's under 100 days, I believe. I'll get to that later. And I agree, an aggravating factor is what the jury took, and anyone that accepts the jury verdict took as being the lies throughout this entire process. That's your character that I need to consider. The second big area is the gravity of the offense. Again, there's really nothing worse. This is the most serious crime in the state. First-degree intentional homicide. That's the worst penalty available in the state. Life imprisonment, potentially without any release. Nothing gets a worse penalty here. The effect on the community is fairly great. I don't know that you are a factor that would cause people to be afraid of you, since this is a very isolated crime directed at your partner of about 25 years or so. And if you don't have another partner, I think that you're at risk of ever repeating this would even be lower than what it is, if you had another partner someday in the future. But the community had to put a lot of efforts into doing what they have to do when these types of crimes occur. Somebody has to advocate for the victim, as the state has done. I was taken also by the fact that it was basically just the state here during the trial. Seeing all the empty seats behind them. I don't know if the jury really caught that or not. I was also taken by the lack of support for the victim and all the letters of support for you. That's telling. I appreciate Ms. Westein coming here and giving the other side. It was the first time I heard that. It was necessary. It had to be said to show that somebody stands up for Barbara. In fact, on the victim, when your attorneys tell me that all the victims support 20 years, it's all but one. The one that everybody else on the other side has advocated for. I think that she might have said it a little bit different than a 20-year return. I don't know. If she was fighting for her life, as Mr. Greenkey indicated, I doubt she would say 20 years. I would think that if that was the case and she could come back in spirit and tell us, it might be a lot more. The facts of this case show is a vicious, aggravated assault on her, resulting in her death. I agree I have no prior experiences with any supervision or the law. Your risk factors are, for the most part, low, except for the lying, which really interferes with the court's ability to accept the compass results on its face by itself, looking at all these other factors. Your risk for future harm to the community is probably low. The last area I have to consider is the need to protect the public. Well, Barbara obviously is not protected. That's part of the risk factor here. It's a domestic crime. You snapped on your partner. Maybe you won't repeat that to others. Your PSI writer recommends life without release. I'm just going to comment on one thing that I troubled with when I saw it referenced in the brief. The quote is, This writer does not believe he necessarily intended to kill his wife the day of the offense. But given his control of the household, it is more likely he became upset with her to the point he reacted in a way that escalated to him becoming so angry he caused the injuries leading to her death. Now, in first blush, that kind of sounds like second-degree homicide charge, reckless homicide charge, crime of passion, heat of passion. But it's not absolute that she believes this was not premeditated. And the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, found it was premeditated. And it doesn't take more than a second, really, to premeditate that death of somebody, as I told the jury. And here, given the description of the offense by Mr. Greinke, once again, it wasn't a second. It wasn't minutes. It's probably much longer than that, that that premeditation existed. But I do agree, you probably did not intend that that morning when you woke up. So from that standpoint, I can accept her comment. And I agree with her that the seriousness of the offense cannot be ignored. The recommendation of the victims are, on one side, a 20-year eligibility, and the other side, never. The state recommends never. You didn't say anything, but your attorney did, and I'll accept his comments for you, that you want 20 years. And now I'll get to my impression of all this. It's never a good day when you have to have a person's death brought into the public eye like this. Having to go through the investigation, which started out down one path, looking for this truck that apparently doesn't exist. Trying to overcome the comments that you made, trying to backtrack where there's opportunities to collect evidence were lost. Nonetheless, they persevered. As Captain Zimmerman said, they were still investigating even during the trial, trying to make sure they had the truth to present to the jury. Although some of those things probably wouldn't have been able to come out at that late date. We had a jury that really knew nothing about the case. They were unbiased, unlike the people sitting behind you. Some people feel one way toward you prior to this, probably. The other side feels the way they have addressed me thus far the whole time. None of them would have been a good juror at all. And they needed people that didn't have that bias, that were impartial. So they could listen to the evidence objectively. Parse through it. Find where the truth lay. And then giving you the benefit of every doubt, come to the conclusion that, in fact, you murdered your wife. And that's why we're here today. There's a lot of pain and suffering in this courtroom. And you're the focal point of it all. Whether you can ever restore people's faith in you, I don't know. But you are somewhat of an enigma. You are, as your attorney said, somebody who came in here with no history as far as the court is concerned. No way dug up some of those thoughts I have about your behavioral health issues or needs. Just little glimmers. And I can't, you know, raise that to a level where that would really have any impact on my sentence, one way or the other. And I agree with your attorney that there should be some glimmer of hope for you. But this is not church. I don't believe in mercy in the courtroom. I don't believe in being lenient or harsh. Because those are things that are not appropriate. What's appropriate is the right sentence for the right person. You're an individual. The compass is based on actuarial tables, basically. Meaning you fit into a category. You can't necessarily apply it to an individual, per se. You have to look at the other factors. In this case here, you had a marriage of 25 years. Your attorney is asking for a 20-year parole eligibility date. I don't know if you're going to be able to tell the judge that reviews that release request whenever it happens. That you've come to grips. You've amended the situation. Because if you don't do that, I doubt that any judge would ever release you. 20 years is way too short. The length of your marriage of 25 years is, in my mind, way too short. I will set your parole eligibility or review date at March 9th of 2048. 30 years from now, when you're 77. I think that would be somewhat consistent with a crime of passion. A second degree homicide had you not put the police down the path you took them. But if you don't correct that by then, in 30 years, if the judge denies it, that life sentence will be that. So I hope you understand this. So, I will prepare the written explanation of determinant sentence. Your total length of your sentence for count one is life imprisonment. You are eligible for release to extend the supervision after serving 30 years and zero months. This document will give you further information on how you can extend that date by bad behavior. I'm not sure that prior sentence credit is really going to have much to do with that, since the date starts 30 years from today. Any comment on that, Mr. Bernard? [01:06:31] Speaker 2: I don't know the answer to that question, Judge, but I can certainly follow up with written communication. I don't know if you get credit for time served on the parole eligibility determination date. [01:06:41] Speaker 1: Since I picked a specific date, I don't know that he gets any additional credit. Mr. Greinke, any comment on that? That would be my understanding. I'm wrong on that. You can let me know. Would that be the first time I'd correct the judgment of conviction? Now, Mr. Kandammer, as I alluded to earlier, you do have the right to appeal my sentence. Talk to your attorneys. I'm sure they'll be capable of going forward on that for you. There's a lot you need to accomplish over the next 30 years. I hope that you can do that. Try to give some meaning to the people that are disappointed in you. See if you still have the supporters behind you, if you come out of this differently. I wish you well. Anything else, Mr. Greinke? [01:07:38] Speaker 8: Just that, Your Honor, if we are wrong about the credit, I agree with 95 days credit today. 95? Yes. [01:07:45] Speaker 1: That we had on your report? That's what we calculated, yes. Yep. 95. Let me just put that in a minute so I can see it quicker than looking through all the documents. Any else from you, Mr. Bernard? [01:07:59] Speaker 2: No. [01:08:00] Speaker 1: Ms. Kandammer? Okay. [01:08:01] Speaker ?: Let's go. Oops. Oops. Let's go. Get back to me. All right. All right. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you.