By Mari Radtke
The testimonial part of a criminal trial held last week in O’Brien County is moving to its final stages beginning Tuesday February 10. Atypically, I sat through as much of that trial as I could. It is the first criminal trial for which I have ever attended.
The first, and most important thing that hit me is the acoustics in the O’Brien County courtroom. Atrocious is not severe enough to describe how bad hearing words spoken by attorneys, witnesses or the judge is while sitting in the gallery. A speaker system is in use for the benefit of the lawyers and jury. I am not sure about how the judge hears. Hearing those occupying those roles in a trial – duh – is of the utmost importance.
With that said, due to the difficulty hearing so much, it will take me time to verify the some facts and some actual testimony as I spend time writing about the trial and, perhaps a verdict.
With that said, I could hear and see enough testimony and evidence to reach several conclusions.
There are five main characters in this story. During the trial these 3 of these 5 were identified as either victim or defendant. The roles of the other 2, I think were witnesses in the eyes of the state. For purposes of this opinion piece, I am going to rename each of these characters to reflect my own personal assessment of their roles in the events of Sunday, October 26, 2025. My assessment comes from what I could piece together from sitting through most of the trial.
Let me say here that this is a jury trial. The 12 jury members and 1 alternate will deliberate over the evidence. They will be able to discuss and review any piece of evidence or testimony they wish. They have the benefit of a better audio system than I.
First let me identify those 5 characters by name and state-given role. Then I will rename them to more accurately reflect the conclusion I reached about what their role actually was. This will accomplish 2 things: 1) It will minimize using their names, and 2) You will be reading my belief from the evidence and testimony I experienced as to who is actually the RESPONSIBLE parties for the actions that may or may not have ever reached the status of criminal conduct.
Lisa Magnussen is identified by the state as a victim. She will be referred to from here forward in this opinion piece as “Claimant 1.”.
Amanda Kennebec is identified by the state as a victim. She will be referred to from here forward in this opinion piece as “Claimant 2.”
Aiden Kennebec is, I believe considered a witness by the state. In this opinion he will be identified as Involved 1.
Dereck Vande Griend is also considered by the state as a witness, I believe. For purposes of this article he will be identified as Involved 2.
Devon Jones is the state’s defendant. He will be referred to in the rest of this article as “State’s Target.”
The “Cliff’s Notes” version of this trial is that State’s Target committed several crimes on Sunday October 26, 2025. State’s Target went to the home of Claimant 1 to pick up a piece of his own property. She slapped him and a physical engagement followed between the 2. She left. He took his property and went home. Claimant 2 went to the home of State’s Target. An outside physical engagement between those two erupted outside of the home of State’s Target. Involved 1 was present and joined in the physical engagement. While not part of testimony, video evidence indicated that Claimant 1 was also present at the home of State’s Target and joined Involved 1 in the physical engagement. At this point my assessment from video evidence is that 3 people are attempting to do physical harm against State’s Target. State’s Target later called 911 suggesting that he was planning to commit suicide. This is the point where law enforcement entered into the matter. The timeline suggests that up to this point 45 minutes to 1 hour had elapsed. The physical engagement on video was far less than 10 minutes and includes 4 and a half minutes of no video.
A little more than “Cliff’s Notes”
At this point it strikes me that mention should be made of the many delays to argue if a video or other item could be used as evidence. Video obtained from a motion activated system at State’s Target’s home seemed to be the biggest point of discussion.
The trial presented testimony and evidence taking place at 2 separate locations. The main allegations are burglary, willful injury causing injury, intimidation with a dangerous weapon and assault while causing bodily injury. I believe there are other charges.
Claimant 1 and State’s Target were longtime friends according to testimony and not argued. Claimant 1 initiated violent physical contact against State’s Target by slapping him. That is a fact not challenged. How the following physical engagement between the 2 and its extent is unclear to me. Claimant 1 left the house without her phone. She went to the home of Claimant 2 where Witnesses 1 and 2 also resided. (And per testimony of Witness 2 his residence is in Germantown. With prosecutor intervention he also claimed residence at the home of Claimant 2.)
Claimant 1 shared her story with Claimant 2, Witness 1 and Witness 2 at the home of Claimant 2, which is located diagonally across an alley from the property of State’s Target.
Within minutes of hearing the story, Witness 2 left, “to go find the phone.” Claimant 2 left “to find Witness 2.” The back door, closest to the property of State’s Target was used. Claimant 1 and Witness 1 both testified that they stayed on the back yard patio. Claimant 2 denies any memory between leaving her home and “waking up in State’s Target yard with him on top of me.” Claimant 2 provided a written, signed statement to one of the police/sheriff. Defense showed her and asked her about it. She denied remembering writing it or signing it. The statement indicates she accused State’s Target of coming to her home. Video evidence shown later does not support that claim.
Video evidence shows Claimant 2 rushing to the front then changing direction to a side door while screaming vulgarities at State’s Target. The audio was recorded while Claimant 2 was out of view. Defense pointed out some shadowy figures at the edge of the property/view range of the camera. Camera recording stopped here for the 4 and a half minutes. What appeared next looked to be physical engagement between 2 people coming from the side of the house into camera view. The shadowy figures entered engagement almost immediately. The was a lot of shouting. Eventually it broke up.
State’s Target made several calls at this point expressing suicide ideation. Video inside the house shows State’s Target entering. Sheriff’s office body cam footage showed a deputy and 2 police officers entering the home and subduing State’s Target. It showed the exchange between State’s Target and law enforcement. State’s Target was sitting on the side of the bathtub holding what has been described as a crossbow. It was small and looked like a plastic toy on video.
Witness 1 admitted he physically hit and kicked State’s Target on State’s Target’s property. He claimed he went there after hearing a commotion at State’s Target’s property. Claimant 1 never testified that she was at State’s Target’s home.
Deputy Tim Rohrbaugh was the sheriff’s deputy was first to respond, had the body cam, used physical force (“smacked him upside the head and he fell into the bathtub”) and a tazer to subdue State’s Target. Body cam footage showed State’s Target taken into custody and the audio recounted much of his experience that night. State’s Target was transported to a hospital due to the suicide statement. During Rohrbaugh’s testimoney he was asked about department policy of the body cam. He said he did not know what policy was but he wore one “for his own protection.” He was asked about the relationship between the county sheriff’s office and city’s (I think it was the cities in O’Brien County he was asked about.) Rohrbaugh described the relationship as the Sheriff’s office would respond to emergencies. There is a long public record of this sheriff, Bruce Devereaux refusing to provide law enforcement assistance to Sutherland under any circumstances. Officer Rohrbaugh has accepted other law enforcement employment and used County law enforcement vehicle and equipment to earn that paycheck. Use of the vehicle for non county uses is clearly against department and county handbook, as well as possibly state law. Sheriff Devereaux is fully aware of the set up.
Sutherland Police Chief Brent Koppe testified. I was not in attendance of his testimony except for the prosecutor’s cleanup after defense questioning.
The defense called the sister of State’s Target. Prosecution worked hard to have this witness not allowed to testify. Sister’s background gave her credibility for her actions. “Sister” was given permission to take possession of State’s Target’s phone to retrieve any videos that might have been on the camera system. She did and provided them to several people. According to her statement she provided them more than one time to Police Chief Koppe, (former) Mayor Kay Gifford and the defense. These videos appear to have not been included in the investigation prior to the filing of charges. If I got it right, they were found and first presented to officials on October 27. The prosecution attempted to discredit the completeness of the videos and seemed to try to suggest that the time stamp was somehow tampered with. Two videos were not entered into evidence. Ten were entered. Formal statements were taken from Claimant 1 and Claimant 2. State’s Target was arrested on October 28 without giving a formal statement.
The mayor testified to first hand experiece in this matter and offered background of her relationship with State’s Target.
State’s Target spend the remaining half of that day on the stand and most of the next, final day of testimony. Highlights of Day 2 testimony included rock solid proof that State’s Target had a right to the clock taken home by State’s Target. He was able to support the evidence and counter prosecution attacks attempting to put State’s Target at the home of Claimant 2. The video timeline supports that he was never there. His testimony also denies pictures of injuries on Claimant 1 and 2 were caused by his physical engagements with them. The legitimacy of his suicide attempt was challenged by the prosecution.
It is unclear to me if this case being what it is is because of a “Keystone Cops” syndrome or an overzealous and possibly overstaffed prosecutor’s office. What seems clear to me in this case is that the power of the State used its might to disadvantage State’s Target at every turn, intentionally or unintentionally.
Trial activity are scheduled to resume on Tuesday.