Shawnee Krall

The court-appointed attorney representing a Minot man charged with murder has been allowed to withdraw from the case days before her client’s trial was set to start.

Shawnee Krall, 30, Minot, was charged in the December 2020 killing of his former roommate, Alice Queirolo, 29, but has taken a protracted and circuitous path through the legal system that has seen critical state evidence thrown out, which included the victim’s body. District Court Judge Stacy Louser’s ruling on the evidence was ultimately upheld by the North Dakota Supreme Court, setting the stage for the trial scheduled to begin on Monday, Sept. 25.

Krall appeared in district court in Minot on Wednesday for a pretrial hearing that on paper was supposed to serve as a launching pad for the jury trial that was then scheduled to begin Monday. The hearing covered a lot of ground, beginning with the court hashing out with the parties exactly which evidence will remain admissible.

Defense attorney Breanna Delorme and her client contended the remaining evidence was largely circumstantial, and Louser was mostly sympathetic to their views. Deputy State’s Attorney Tiffany Sorgen maintained the evidence at issue did not represent the totality of the state’s case and that they had enough to prove Krall’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

“It’s part of the total, your Honor. It’s just a small piece of this that adds up to the entirety that shows Mr. Krall is guilty,” Sorgen said. “We’re bringing it in from the edges. I understand that this is not the normal kind of murder trial. Because normally we go from point A to point B. We are having to go round the circumference at this point.”

Louser would ultimately rule against Krall’s motion to dismiss, moving on to what would prove to be the primary issue facing the court that morning: the recent motion filed by Delorme requesting to withdraw from the case.

Krall has had nine different attorneys withdraw from his case since he was charged in 2020, with the most recent being Delorme. Delorme filed a motion to withdraw after being informed that a relative of Krall’s had told him to assault her, itself recorded during a jailhouse phone call.

The state shared the content of the call with Delorme quickly after receiving it themselves, telling the court that no charges were being filed against the family member who made the threat. Sorgen also pointed out the irony of Krall saying in the recording that he “would never hit a woman.” Krall had previously been recorded threatening to assault her as well.

Louser questioned how seriously the state was taking the various allegations, citing additional writeups for 41 assaults in the Ward County Jail against Krall that have gone uncharged. Sorgen said there really wasn’t a good answer, saying that her office only becomes aware of these jailhouse incidents if charges are being filed by the alleged victims.

Krall also had recently filed a request for new representation, as well as a complaint with the disciplinary and review board against Delorme, claiming that she had provided inadequate counsel. Krall claimed in court that Delorme had been slow to file motions to dismiss on his behalf, only doing so after his complaints had been filed.

“She was assigned in April and kept saying she’d file what I requested and stuff. It was eight months after she was assigned,” Krall said. “I just feel like she wasn’t working on my case. After I put that in, she filed what I had requested. That’s kind of weird.”

Louser pressed Krall regarding his claims, pointing out that not only had Delorme filed the necessary paperwork for his case but she had largely prevailed thus far on his behalf in having further evidence from searches and seizures thrown out of the case. Louser cautioned Krall against seeking new counsel, saying it may take some time for the commission to find another attorney to assign to his case.

“Which means the trial may ultimately be continued indefinitely once again. At some point, Mr. Krall, between yourself and the victim’s family, we’ve got to have closure here,” Louser said. “Once a disciplinary complaint is filed, Ms. Delorme’s abilities are somewhat limited. If the goal or the objective was simply to get a new attorney assigned, whether it’s through physical assault or violence or filing a disciplinary complaint, that’s not a great strategy, Mr. Krall.”

Eventually the court and the state prosecutors all conceded that despite their consternation with the decision to postpone Krall’s trial once again, it was the only way to avoid the conflict of interest created by Krall’s complaint to the State Disciplinary Board. Members of the public who have received summons for jury duty will be contacted as will the potential witnesses that had planned to testify on Monday.

Before the proceedings closed, Krall objected to information included in a local media report on the jailhouse phone call in which the threat against Delorme was allegedly made. Krall claimed the report’s characterization of the nature of the call was “slanderous and libel” but was overruled by Louser who noted that the contents of the trial were public record.

A new date for Krall’s trial has not been set.