Waiting for freedom

AMY PATTERSON

After Natalie DePriest was convicted through a plea bargain in August 2013 for production of marijuana and possession of the drug with intent to distribute, she was incarcerated in the state women’s prison in Vandalia to serve a 15-year sentence beginning in November of that same year.

Natalie, along with her brother David DePriest, was charged and sentenced in the St. Francois County Circuit Court in connection with an alleged marijuana growing operation inside the Farmington apartment she shared with her brother. The siblings were represented by the same attorney, Dan Viets — who was chairman of Show Me Cannabis and the state coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws — throughout the proceedings and eventually pleaded guilty to the charges on their lawyer’s recommendation.

Although they were sentenced separately, Viets had asked Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Pratte (who has since retired) to place both individuals on probation, while Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Pat King requested that the judge impose the maximum sentences with no possibility of probation.

After being sentenced, both siblings filed motions seeking post-conviction relief. Natalie’s motion alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because Viets continued to represent both her and David even after it became clear during plea negotiations when there was a conflict of interest between them and that the conflict negatively affected Viets’ performance on her behalf.

Judge Pratte overruled both motions without any kind of hearing.

Since then, the DePriests’ cases have made their way through Missouri’s appeals courts, ending with a ruling by the Supreme Court of Missouri, issued on Feb. 28, which declared that the now-retired judge made an error by overruling the DePriests’ motions without an evidentiary hearing. The court vacated Judge Pratte’s judgments and sent the cases back to the circuit court for further proceedings that are consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

In its published opinion, the Supreme Court stated that both of the DePriests’ motions to the trial court “set forth sufficient facts showing that their joint defense counsel acted under an actual (not merely theoretical) conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel’s representation of each defendant.”

And although it would seem that the Supreme Court’s ruling would mean the DePriests ought to be released from prison — because, in a sense, the Missouri high court nullified the trial court’s actions — the law is not that straightforward. Consequently, the DePriests remain incarcerated in the Department of Corrections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling requires, instead, that the DePriests be granted a hearing in the St. Francois County Circuit Court to determine whether Viets’ representation of both defendants was a conflict of interest. Its opinion stated specifically that “… the question is not whether David or Natalie (or both) is entitled to relief but whether each of them is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and an opportunity to persuade the motion court that each is entitled to relief on this claim. At the hearing, the state is free to argue why it does not believe they are entitled to relief.”

Natalie, in an interview with the Daily Journal last week, said she’s still waiting to hear from her lawyer — who, incidentally, is no longer Viets — about when the evidentiary hearing will be scheduled in the St. Francois County court.

Natalie is also waiting to find out if she’ll actually get to attend the hearing in person.

“I’ll either testify there in court — they’ll bring me back down to St. Francois County,” she said, “...
or I will do a video deposition here in Vandalia.”

Looking back to when her case was first making its way through the trial court process, Natalie realizes now how little she knew about what was going on behind the scenes, so to speak, between her attorney and the prosecutor. She regrets hiring Viets to represent her and feels his priorities put her and her brother’s best interests behind his quest to ultimately change the state’s marijuana laws.

Because she had never been in any kind of legal trouble before, she was naive about the whole process.

“We didn’t know what to expect,” said Natalie, “and didn’t know what to expect of an attorney.”

She instead placed her trust in Viets, largely because of his reputation for effectively handling marijuana cases in the past and his dedication to the cause for legalizing cannabis in Missouri, effectively placing her freedom in his hands and believing he had her best interests at heart.

She learned after it was too late that Viets failed to communicate to her how precarious her situation was and that he was not getting the cooperation from the prosecutor’s office in St. Francois County that he was accustomed to getting from prosecutors in his home town of Columbia, Missouri.

“Once it was all over,” she said, “we looked back on it and thought, ‘hold on, this isn’t at all how it should’ve gone down.’”

As noted in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the DePriests argued in their appeal that Viets “acknowledged, almost from the beginning of the joint representation, that he believed the evidence of David’s guilt was strong but that the evidence of Natalie’s guilt was weak or non-existent.”

In hindsight — which, as they say “is 20/20” — it would seem clear that Viets ought to have stepped down as attorney from one of the DePriests’ cases once he saw the evidence against the siblings was perhaps not equal, especially, as their appeal stated, “the initial plea offers from the state tendered the same terms … to both defendants and that these offers were contingent upon acceptance by both defendants.”

Instead, Viets advised the siblings that neither of them should accept the initial terms offered by the prosecutor because he “believed the evidence against Natalie was far less compelling than the evidence against David.”

Despite the fact that the appeals process has already been drawn out for more than three years, it may not yet be at an end.

“If and when we do win this evidentiary hearing,” said Natalie, “it’s likely that the prosecutor is going to appeal it again. And I think that the county and the community needs to understand how much money and time this office has spent on putting two non-violent people in prison. If people would voice their opinion ... let them know that we have their support and that they need to stop appealing and just let us resolve this as fast as possible.”

Natalie said she does not expect the prosecutor to just drop the case and she is certainly not asking for that outcome. Rather, she is hopeful that he will simply offer her (and her brother) another plea bargain.

“All we want is an opportunity to renegotiate with attorneys that represent each of us and have our best interests at heart,” she said.

In the meantime, Natalie has had to deal with the reality of her current situation — incarceration in a state prison — and while it would be easy to dwell on the many negatives of that reality, she has chosen to make the best of it as much as possible.

“Of course it’s been a huge change,” she said. “I was a normal person before I got put in here. I think people have the misconception that people that are in prison always deserve to be there and they’re these horrible people. I was just a normal person. I graduated from college. I have a journalism degree. I had a wonderful career and had never been in trouble. And to go from a life where I make a lot of money and I support myself, to being put in here and having my freedom taken away and having to rely on the support of others to help me get through it — it’s a culture shock. It’s hard to explain what it’s like to have your freedom taken away. It’s been a hard adjustment, but I’ve figured out that I’m stronger than I realized.”

Natalie remarked that, in addition to having support from family and friends on the outside, certain correctional officers and other staff working at the Vandalia prison — the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center —  have also been helpful and supportive during her years of incarceration.

“There’s really good people that work here,” she said. “There are good officers here and good case workers here that help you through it.”

She’s also found friends among her fellow inmates.

“You find good people here,” said Natalie. “You just have to watch who you trust and who you rely on.”

Shortly after coming to Vandalia, Natalie began looking for ways to keep herself occupied and moving forward. One way was to start writing a book about her experiences in prison.

“I think people need to know what it’s like,” she said. “The majority of people in prison are non-violent people — most of them are non-violent drug offenders. They’re not murderers, they’re not rapists, they’re not horrible people. There’s mothers and sisters and aunts and daughters.


People that have been judged on the worst mistakes they made in their lives and they’re paying for it for months or years at a time. It’s its own little world, its own little community and we get through it.”

Working on her book not only keeps her mind occupied, but also gives Natalie a way to constructively deal with this significant interruption to her life.

“It definitely helps me keep my mind occupied and it helps me kind of get through it and allow me to deal with things,” she said. “If I get upset or angry when I sit and think of other things that’ve happened, it gives me a good outlet to express my feelings and to hopefully help educate people about what it’s like to get wrapped up in a system that from afar you think is a good system — you think it’s a working system — but when you get wrapped up in it, it’s a world that is very hard to navigate through.”

Natalie has also kept busy by working various jobs to which she’s been assigned, including in the prison’s warehouse and canteen and as a dorm leader to help keep her housing unit clean and in order.

And she’s taken advantage of recreational opportunities, such as watching inmate plays and performances. During baseball season, she finds temporary respite from the daily prison routine by watching St. Louis Cardinals games at every opportunity.

“Watching the Cardinals games has made my life so much nicer,” she said, “because it’s something to look forward to every day. So I’m so ready for the season to start. I’m a big sports fan.”

Natalie has also discovered she has a talent for creative cooking.

“I’ve learned how to cook. I can make amazing meals in the microwave. I could not cook a Ramen noodle when I got here, but now I can cook five-star gourmet meals,” she said jokingly. “It’s pretty amazing.”

Keeping with the same lighthearted vein, she said one of the things she’s come to appreciate the most over the last three-plus years is having the opportunity to buy new bras.

“The funniest thing is, what makes you feel most normal here is being able to buy a bra,” she said laughing. “They issue you state bras and they are just terrible. They’re just these pieces of flimsy fabric that do nothing for you and you’re required to wear them. But twice a year, if you have the money, you can order out of the Hanes catalog and get yourself a normal bra. It’s amazing the little things in life that you take for granted until you get to a place like this.”

Regardless of the outcome of her upcoming evidentiary hearing and, depending on the outcome, what happens with her case afterward, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. She is scheduled to be paroled in May.

“I had my hearing a year ago,” she said. “I go home on May 19 … or maybe a little bit earlier. I’m counting down the days.”