Ward County prosecutors ran through a gauntlet of issues and concerns raised by North Central District Court Judge Stacey Louser regarding the rules and parameters of the evidence and testimony they seek to introduce in a murder trial set to begin early in the new year.

After more than 800 days since he was originally charged, Shawnee Krall, 31, Minot, is set to appear for a long awaited jury trial for the murder of Alice Queirolo, 29. The trial is set to begin with jury selection on Jan. 2 and is scheduled out until Jan. 12.

Central to the concerns introduced at the hearing on Thursday morning by Louser was the ironclad rule she demanded of all parties, which was to avoid at all costs using language that might make reference to evidence that has been previously deemed inadmissible and disallowed from being introduced.

“Everybody is aware that certain evidence was determined inadmissible by the State Supreme Court meaning, it is not allowed. Since that opinion was issued, the Court has been extremely deliberate in the language that is used throughout these proceedings, to protect the integrity of this case.” Louser said, “Based on statements made at the last meeting, it would seem the counsel is in need of a reminder.”

The evidence in question was collected from a vehicle allegedly left by Krall on the property of a third party. Louser threw out all of the evidence related to the vehicle, which included Queirolo’s body discovered in the vehicle’s trunk after it was determined Minot Police officers had not contacted Krall’s probation officer. Louser’s ruling was eventually upheld by the North Dakota Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of a charge of gross sexual imposition against Krall.

Assistant State’s Attorney Stephanie Davis spent the hearing articulating how she and Deputy State’s Attorney Tiffany Sorgen plan to walk the line the judge has drawn for them. Louser repeatedly reinforced the state’s requirements set forth by North Dakota law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Queirolo was murdered and that Krall is guilty of committing it.

Davis was pressed by Louser on the relevance of testimony from three specific witnesses and for context to determine if it will be possible to avoid referencing or introducing the tossed evidence. The parties reviewed transcripts and agreed on further redactions to various lines and entire pages from several of them, and heard testimony from an expert witness the state hopes to testify at the trial.

The parties talked among themselves in circles at times, with Davis doing her best to answer Louser’s queries without revealing too much about her office’s case. Davis would eventually provide additional context and the goals for the proposed testimony to develop a proper timeline for the murder to undermine Krall’s alibi amongst other priorities.