08^04MIU041024.JPG

Nicolae Miu takes the stand and is questioned by his defense attorney Aaron Nelson in the courtroom during his trial at the St. Croix County Circuit Court in Hudson, Minn., on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. ] Elizabeth Flores • liz.flores@startribune.com

A St. Croix County jury convicted Nicolae Miu, involved in an incident on Apple River near Somerset Wis., of first degree reckless homicide, among other charges on Thursday, April 11.

And before that, Miu took the stand in his own defense on Tuesday, April 9.

For Miu, he’s been waiting to tell this story for almost two years and it may have been the most important four hours of his life.

Defense attorney Aaron Nelson began by addressing the alleged punch of Madison Coen and the issue of provocation.

Jawahn Cockfield’s video showed Miu being confronted by Madison Coen and Ryhley Mattison.

Miu testified that the women were “in his face,” swearing at him to go away and pointing down the river. He testified he felt frustrated and annoyed that Coen would not listen.

Miu told Nelson he could feel his heart rate rising, that he was experiencing tunnel vision and that the women were putting their hands on him, grabbing his arm without his “invitation.”

Miu admitted to having his knife open in his right hand.

“I pushed her away from my face,” Miu testified. Nelson asked, “Did you intend to hurt her?”

“Absolutely not,” Miu replied.

Nelson humanized his client by posting photos of him following his heart surgery in 2020 holding a large heart-shaped cushion and another holding his pet dog, “my angel.”

Miu told investigator Brandie Hart, he took the knife from one of the young tubers who attacked him.

On the stand, he told Nelson: “No, I lied about the knife.”

Miu reiterated that he approached the Schuman group looking for his friend’s missing phone, and that he thought they might have it. He claimed to have stumbled when he approached the tubers, causing him to lose his snorkel and grab onto the teens’ tubes.

Nelson asked, “Did you ever say you were looking for little girls?”

“Absolutely not. It's pathetic,” Miu answered.

Miu testified the tubers told him, “You have 10 seconds.”

As the group closed in, Mui testified he felt overwhelmed, anxious.

Nelson asked Miu about his comfort level and fear level before the punching began.

“I remember the young boys were yelling, pointing at me saying things that are not true, Miu testified. “I’m reaching for my pocket knife. My fear is getting really high.”

After he pushed Coen away with his left hand, Miu got punched and went down in the river.

He told Nelson his fear level was at 10 on a 10-point scale. “My head went under water,” Miu said. “I felt like I was submerged under water. I’m getting hit on the head.”

Miu thought he got hit four times at least.

“I tried getting up but I couldn't,” Miu testified, “I feared for my life.”

Nelson put up a frame showing Schuman with his hands on Miu’s neck.

“I felt like I was going to die,” Miu testified. “I reached out and I stabbed him.”

Nelson asked Miu if he was trying to kill someone?

“Absolutely not,” Miu said. ”I was just trying to defend myself.”

Miu testified he lost his bowel when he was getting hit.

Nelson asked Miu where his head was following the attack.

“I was completely confused,” Miu said. “I was in a fog.”

Miu told Nelson he tossed the knife on the bank on his way back to his group.

“I didn’t want to have anything to do with it,” Miu testified.

Back with his group Miu testified he could not remember what he said.

Nelson questioned Miu about what he told Hart about the days following the incident.

“I have nightmares,” Miu said. “I have them every night.”

On cross-examination, Smestad stuck to the prosecution’s plan of questioning why Miu approached the Schuman group, grabbed their tubes and said they took his snorkel when the video shows he dropped it.

Smestad continued his cross-examination by asking why Miu appeared to turn his back to the group of tubers but instead of walking away, turned back and re-engaged them.

“Why not leave?” Smestad asked.

Smestad asked Miu why he did not warn the group or show them he had a knife?

Smestad challenged the defense’s claim that it was 13 to one, noting that not all of the tubers engaged Miu.

Smestad continued his cross-examination by asking Miu why he left the river instead of going to law enforcement?

Smestad played the complete video of St. Croix County Sheriff Scott Knudson’s conversation, characterizing Miu as fishing for information and playing dumb about his actions on the river.

Smestad revisited Miu’s interview with Hart. He portrayed it as not just one lie but lie after lie about the snorkel, about boys in the other group pulling knives, pulling down his pants, about being hit by Coen.

Smestad accused Miu of conveniently not remembering facts when it suited his story.

He pointed out that despite his “poor health” Miu still managed to run up on the group of teen tubers.

Smestad concluded his cross-examination, claiming Miu acted out of anger, not self defense.

On recross-examination, Nelson reminded jurors that watching the video broken down frame-by-frame is nothing like making split second decisions and reacting in real time.

The defense rested its case at 3:47 p.m. on April 9.

Judge Waterman adjourned the jury for the day setting the stage for closing arguments to begin on Wednesday morning.

08^05MIU041024.JPG

Dr. Victor Froloff from the Ramsey County (Minn.) Medical Examiner's Office looks over photos that he took of stabbing victim Isaac Schuman during the Nicolae Miu trial at the St. Croix County Circuit Court in Hudson, Minn., on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. ] Elizabeth Flores • liz.flores@startribune.com

Medical Examiner testifies

The prosecution called Ramsey County’s Assistant Medical Examiner, Victor Froloff, and the St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office Investigator, Brandie Hart, as their final two witnesses before resting their case against Nicolae Miu for first degree Intentional homicide of Isaac Schuman and the attempted first degree homicide of Rhyley Mattison, A.J. Martin, Dante Carlson and Tony Carlson and battery of Madison Coen.

Froloff testified to the findings from his autopsy of Schuman.

Assistant District Attorney Brian Smestad walked Froloff through the steps of his external and internal examination of Schuman’s body including the collection of trace evidence, DNA evidence and toxicology.

Forensic pathology investigation into the sudden and suspicious death of

Froloff determined the cause of Schuman’s death to be a deep, penetrating stab wound to Schuman’s left chest leading to his death by exsanguination.

Froloff determined the manner of his death to be homicide.

Smestad circulated a dozen photographs made by ME Froloff documenting his examination to the jurors.

Due to the graphic nature of the photos, Judge Michael Waterman cautioned jurors to “Consider as much as your senses allow.”

Froloff noted that the depth of the wound, 4.3 inches, exceeded the length of the wound, 3.9 inches and that he testified that the knife transected the rib cage with enough force to cut through two ribs and penetrate the pericardium causing injury to the apex of Schuman’s heart.

According to Froloff’s report, Isaac Schuman’s Blood Alcohol Concentration was 0.219 or nearly three times the legal limit in Wisconsin.

In his cross-examination, defense attorney Aaron Nelson questioned Froloff about scenarios that could have produced enough force to create such a deep wound.

Nelson suggested that the depth of the wound could have been the result of a body moving or falling forward into the knife and that the trajectory of the cut could have been the result of the “person holding the knife falling backward.”

Froloff responded that his examination was restricted to science and that there were “endless possibilities” for how the wound could have been made.

The prosecution called their final witness, St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office Investigator Brandie Hart to the stand.

The purpose for calling Hart to the stand was to introduce the entirety of her interview with Miu, recorded the night of the incident at the St. Croix County jail.

The interview documented that Miu was correctly Mirandized, going on to tell his version of what happened that afternoon on the river. Neither he nor Hart had seen the Cockfield video at the time of the interview.

Miu’s primary contentions were:

He “absolutely” did not have a knife, the knife was not his, that he took it from one of the attackers who had at least two knives among them; 

  • It was self defense, a claim he reiterated numerous times during the interview;
  • The tubers took his snorkel and tried to pull down his pants;
  • That he was scared and feared for his life;
  • That he was in shock and did not remember what happened after the attack;
  • He thought the Schuman group might have the missing phone he was looking for;
  • He did not know how he got away; and
  • That he was not in the best of health due to a quadruple bypass in 2020.

Hart testified that she did not smell or detect any indication that Miu was impaired from the use of alcohol at the time of the interview.

During cross-examination, Hart agreed with defense attorney Corey Chirafisi, that in her experience, a suspect and victim’s memory can be impacted by the stress of a traumatic event and that that stress can linger depending on the individual.

Hart confirmed that Miu never wavered in his claim of self defense and that he believed from his point of view that he was attacked and had to defend himself.

Chirafisi argued that during the Hart interview, Miu never made a statement to contradict that he was in fear and never denied that he defended himself with a knife.

Chirafisi also acknowledged that Miu lied about how he got the knife.

On re-cross-examination, Smestad asked and Hart confirmed Miu had no marks or injuries indicating that he had been strangled or suffered other physical injuries in the confrontation and that he did not say anything about hearing anyone tell him that he had “10 seconds.”

Beside questioning the truthfulness of what Miu told Hart during the interview, Smestad questioned the sincerity of Miu’s story.

Near the end of the interview, Miu puts his head in his hands and said: “Now my whole life is down the tubes.”

Hart confirmed that at that moment she did not observe any tears.

Smestad suggested that Miu’s remorse was fabricated as were most of his answers to Hart's questions.

The state rested its case on April 9 at 10:51 a.m.

(3) comments

Steven Mael

What I learned as a result of the Nicolae Miu slashing Isaac Schuman trial.

1. That in St. Croix County, justice is whatever Sheriff Knudson and DA Karl Anderson say it is.

2. That you are not allowed to approach anyone in a public space when looking for lost property, or for that matter, for any reason, even if it is just to talk or look around.

3. That public areas are not public areas, unless you are a person who is in the public space ex post defacto approved by Sheriff Knudson and DA Karl Anderson.

4. That if you approach someone in any public space for any reason you are legally subject to bullying, harassment, defamation, slander, taunting, and other verbal, mental and physical abuse.

5. That the touching of somebody else’s inner-tube is subject to legitimized anger.

6. That gang behavior is legal and legitimate in St. Croix County.

7. That the use of “fighting words” is legal, especially by drunken underage youth, in St. Croix County.

8. That underage youths being drunk in public is acceptable, encouraged, and most certainly, not punishable by the laws of our criminal justice system.

9. That nobody is responsible for underage individuals providing alcohol to those youths, even if people are physically harmed, there is great bodily injury, or death that results from the public drunkenness of those underage individual’s behaviors.

10. That even if you walk away from a group of individuals who are insulting you, you are required, by St. Croix County DA and Sheriff, to keep moving.

11. That if you re-engage a group to verbally defend your honor and to discredit the slander that is being directed at you, that you are an assailant.

12. That if you are surrounded by a gang of drunken youths, you are responsible for anything that happens to you. After all, they are the victims.

13. That if you are knocked down, it is okay, particularly while standing in a river.

14. That if you are physically struck in the face by a gang of drunken youth it is okay.

15. That if you are held down under water by a gang of drunken youth it is okay.

16. That water is not dangerous and should never be seen as a deadly force tool.

17. That if you are surrounded by a large gang of underage drunken youth who are overtly ridiculing and defaming you in a public space, and you get touched, knocked down, struck in the face, and held down under water, that you do not have the right to fear for your life and must be persecuted, prosecuted as a felon, and sent to prison.

18. That Miu is the only one who did something wrong during this altercation on the Apple River.

19. That you think what I am saying is wrong and that I am sure that you hate me for even saying these things, but that it wasn’t wrong for a large gang of underage drunken youths to do what they did.

And no, I do not know anyone in this group, including Miu or you. I have no affiliation or pony in this parade. The only thing I have to go on is ethics, morality, civility, public duty, the Golden Rule, and justice. What happened to Miu and Miu alone is none of those. Am I saying that Miu is a golden boy undeserving of some sort of judicial action? Absolutely not. What I am saying is that justice has not been well served here, in this situation. To go after Miu with torches, pitch forks and a lynching rope is well…

https://www.gotquestions.org/without-sin-cast-first-stone.html

Jesus’ statement “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” is found in John 8:7. Jesus was teaching in the temple when the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery, and they asked Him if she should be stoned as required by the Law of Moses. However, they cared nothing about this woman; they were using her to trap Jesus. In their minds, if He told them to set the woman free, they could claim He did not hold to the Law of Moses. If He told them to stone her, they could claim He was not the Savior; and, if He said nothing, they could claim He lacked wisdom. Jesus did not answer immediately but stooped and wrote something on the ground, and they kept pressing Him. Finally, the Lord said, in essence, “Go ahead and stone her because that is what the Law requires. But the Law also requires that the first stone be thrown by a person who is sinless in connection with this charge” (John 8:6–7).

There is no doubt that this woman was guilty of a capital offense and that the Law required that she be stoned, but the Law also required that the guilty man be stoned as well (Deuteronomy 22:22), that witnesses be produced, and that a witness begin the execution. But the Jewish leaders came with venom against Jesus and were thwarted by their own single-minded hate. They did not produce the guilty man, and they were unwilling or unable to produce the required witnesses. We do not know what Jesus wrote, but, after He wrote a second time, the Jews left one by one, from the oldest to the youngest, without saying another word. Jesus then set the woman free with a warning to her to sin no more.

From this passage we learn that we do not accuse others unless we first thoroughly search our own hearts and minds to make certain that we are pure in every possible aspect (Matthew 7:3). Also, if we must admonish someone, we should do so as instructed in Scripture; we always look to God’s glory and never cause unnecessary division or harm (Matthew 18:15), but we do work to keep the church pure. Moreover, Jesus was the only sinless person in the temple scene, and, instead of condemning the woman, He looked ahead to His work on the cross and offered her life. Likewise, we should use every possible opportunity to forgive and to reach out with the gospel and the love of Christ, always remembering that we, too, are sinners in need of the Savior (Romans 3:23).

Marcia Badon

Very well said.

Mark Lunde

The jury got it wrong. It was self defense. The underage punks should be in jail.

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for taking part in our commenting section. We want this platform to be a safe and inclusive community where you can freely share ideas and opinions. Comments that are racist, hateful, sexist or attack others won’t be allowed. Just keep it clean. Do these things or you could be banned:

• Don’t name-call and attack other commenters. If you’d be in hot water for saying it in public, then don’t say it here.

• Don’t spam us.

• Don’t attack our journalists.

Let’s make this a platform that is educational, enjoyable and insightful.

Email questions to crichardson@orourkemediagroup.com.

Share your opinion

Avatar

Join the conversation

Recommended for you