Travis McDermott

The Minot man who was found guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment after a jury trial in North Central District Court in January has appealed his conviction and presented oral arguments to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Travis McDermott, 41, Minot, was found guilty at trial for causing the death of Greyson Sletto, 32, Willow City, during an altercation at a Minot bar in May, 2023. McDermott was charged with brandishing a firearm during the altercation and firing the handgun twice at Sletto. McDermott filed his notice of appeal in May, after being sentenced to serve seven years with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

According to court records, McDermott is appealing his conviction on the grounds that “a number of jurors” witnessed McDermott in visible shackles and handcuffs at the outset of the trial, despite a prior order by District Judge Todd Cresap that he was to be “free of any visible restraints.”

McDermott’s trial attorney Philip Becher raised the possibility of the defense moving for a mistrial, but McDermott claims he was dissuaded after Cresap responded saying, “So you want him to sit in jail for another how many months?”

McDermott’s appeal attorney, Samuel Gereszek, argued to the justices during oral arguments on Tuesday that the district court “failed to follow well established jurisprudence procedures on the issue of visible physical restraints.”

“This is an error that is so significant,” Gereszek said. “To me, the law is there. The connection just needs to be made that the judge is required to, in this particular unique set of facts of circumstances. And to pass the buck under policy or ‘it’s up to the jail,’ isn’t enough. It’s the court’s burden to make sure the defendant receives a fair and impartial trial. When this kind of violation happens, there is no way for a defendant to have a fair and impartial trial, unless the State is able to prove that it didn’t affect the outcome of the trial. It wasn’t even asked.”

Deputy Ward County State’s Attorney Tiffany Sorgen, trial attorney in the case, said Gereszek was “putting the cart before the horse,” arguing that since McDermott had waived his right to motion for a mistrial, no error on the part of the district court was possible.

“It was waived. Therefore, there was nothing for Judge Cresap to rule upon. He did not have the option to grant a mistrial. There’s no framework to allow for that. I fail to see any obvious error in regards to this,” Sorgen said.

Sorgen also argued the timing of when McDermott said he was seen in restraints by potential jurors was also critical, and only one potential juror had admitted during selection that they had. Sorgen noted the potential juror in question said this had occurred through news coverage of McDermott’s case rather than during jury selection.

“There’s no indication in the record whatsoever that the defendant was even seen by any members of the panel in restraint. In fact, the only information that we have that any potential panel members saw the defendant came from the defendant himself,” Sorgen said. “That was not explored in voir dire. That is the purpose of voir dire is to weed out individuals that have a demonstrated bias or potentially won’t be fair or impartial jurors for whatever reason.”

Sorgen faulted McDermott’s defense for not asking any questions during the selection of the jury panel regarding the issue or singling out any of the potential jurors whom McDermott said saw him in restraints.

Gereszek offered a brief rebuttal, during which he requested the justices to reverse or vacate McDermott’s conviction. A ruling in the case is expected in the near future.