Almandinger found guilty on all counts

PALMER — After a little more than a day of deliberations, a 12-person jury in Palmer found 16-year-old Erick Almandinger guilty of all charges for his role in the Nov. 2016 slaying of fellow teen David Grunwald.

They returned a guilty verdict on first-degree murder, three charges of second-degree murder, felony murder, kidnapping, assault, vehicle theft and arson.

The defense and prosecution both made their closing arguments on Wednesday, May 30, punctuating an already emotional trial.

The big question the jurors debated amongst themselves centered on the defendant’s intent. The various members of the community ultimately had to decide if Almandinger was an “unwilling bystander” or “willing participant” during the beating, kidnapping and execution of Grunwald.

Palmer District Attorney, Roman J. Kalytiak asked the jury if they were wondering why he and Almandinger’s defense attorney, Jon Iannaccone, hadn’t done much arguing. It’s true -- the two refrained from the classic legal battle one might see on a courtroom drama. They never shouted ‘objection!’ Or locked horns in a game of legal volleyball, constantly trying to cut each other off. This case, as Kalytiak put it, was ‘unique.’

Kalytiak explained that the state and defense actually agreed on nearly everything except for Alamindger’s intent. Iannaccone attested to the work done by the investigation team and the impressive amount of evidence, from the forensic research to tower “pings.” Both sides agreed that Almandinger spun a web of lies, but for entirely different reasons.

“Erick Almandinger didn’t want any of this to happen,” Iannaccone said.

According to Iannacone, Almandinger, who declined to testify on his own behalf, was just a kid in a "dress up game."

For the first time in his trial, tears streamed from Almandinger's eyes as his attorney recounted his version of the events during his closing arguments.

Noticing Almandinger's reaction, Grundwald's mother responded by writing a note with big letters stating "cry like David cried."

Iannaccone asked the jury to find his client innocent of murder and kidnapping but guilty of “manslaughter” and other lesser crimes, including evidence tampering and impeding investigation.

Iannaccone argued that although his client pointed at two different shooters — first, Dominic Johnson, then Austin Barrett — but that Erick was definitely not the one who pulled the trigger. Iannaccone once again named Barrett as the shooter, citing the stolen watch and hat found in a backpack at Devin Peterson’s house.

Iannaccone blamed the meshing of two different worlds for Grunwald’s death: a “kid who had everything” and the “kid who had nothing.” The first being Grunwald and Johnson as the latter. He said that perhaps somehow, Grunwald, the kid who had a great home and bright future “hurt” the kid whose own mother told her son to “say hi to your dad” when he got to jail. He said that Almandinger, like Johnson, was a “kid in crisis” with rough backgrounds and experiencing trauma, thus making a series of “bad choices” that ultimately boiled over into tragedy.

He also reminded the jury that it was the burden of the state to prove that Almandinger was guilty.

After Iannaccone finished his closing argument, the prosecution had one last powerful rebuttal.

Setting up a monitor facing the jury, Kalytiak flashed between photographs of the grisly murder scene and Almandinger's partying, Kalytiak graphically contrasted the deceased with his living counterpart. He called Grunwald’s death a “road bump” in their non-stop party.

At the bottom of the monitor was the number 27 which represented the minutes Almandinger had to change the course of his actions the day of the murder.

Kalytiak also pulled out a big poster board with a flow chart on it. It had various charges from assault and kidnapping to Murder I and II. These charges flowed with the relative timeline of events from the evening and asked basic yes or no questions that divide Almandinger as a “unwilling” or “willing.” This boiled down to ‘yes, he was willing therefore guilty’ on the left or ‘no, he was unwilling therefore not guilty,’ to the right.

This visual aid was Kalytiak’s attempt to simplify the case with so many details mixed with evidence, testimonies, lies and facts. He called it a “map” that the jury could use to find their way “through the woods

“We are here to find the truth,” Kalytiak said to the jury. “Your decision is ultimately your opinion.”

Kalytiak acknowledged that it’s difficult to weigh in on juvenile cases, but he made a comparison of Grunwald and Almandinger, both the same age and both mature but in a “completely different way.”

““Are these children or are they adults?” Kalytiak asked. is the perfect case for the accomplice liability statute,” Kalytiak said.

“Erick does not get a medal for this,” Iannaccone said, admitting his client will ultimately be serving time.