I am sure this Christmas has been filled with such heartache for this family.
I pray justice will provide them with some peace.  It won't be closure -- for there is never closure for loved ones lost in this manner.
 

http://www.thv11.com/news/article/291144/2/Not-guilty-plea-in-dispatcher-murder

In the video at the link above, Dawna's mother talks about how she'd lost hope that they'd arrest Kevin while she was still alive.  I hope the fact that he has been arrested and charged with Dawna's murder brings her some peace; and I hope he won't be able to bond out of jail so that she will know exactly where he is at all times.

I had the same thoughts about the bond reduction, didn't make sense to me either!

 

Here's the link and a snip texasmom posted earlier in this thread as part of the discussion of a possible bond reduction for Kevin Duck.  I hope he stays behind bars too, (especially for Dawna's family's sake) but keep in mind, bail is not supposed to be punitive, but is to be a means to ensure the defendant returns for hearings, trials etc.  He is still innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, etc.    I hope the article I posted below will give some understanding how it's supposed to work.  Kevin Duck's attorney is using the basis of lowering the bond amount that is keeping him in jail and in his opinion, keeping him from working with him on his defense.  Jails have rules on hours etc., even for attorneys, and there may not be much if any way to have private discussion between client and attorney.  I'm not taking one side over another, just wanted folks to understand the purpose of bail and how it can be misused.  We don't want Kevin Duck getting off the hook sometime down the line because he was denied the opportunity to make a defense etc.  
http://www.thv11.com/news/article/291144/2/Not-guilty-plea-in-dispatcher-murder
Kevin Duck pleads not guilty to Dawna Natzke's murder
December 16, 2013

 
Kevin Duck, 30, appeared in court Monday morning and entered a not guilty plea. He also asked the judge to reduce his $250,000 bond. That hearing will take place Dec. 30.

"We hope to get him out on bond because it's easier for us to work with a defendant - when they can come to your office and do things of that nature," said Clay Janske, Duck's Attorney.

 


Here's the article I hope helps:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/getting-out-of-jail-after-you-have-been-arrested.html
Getting Out of Jail after You Have Been Arrested


The Process of Setting Bail
If you have been arrested, you will probably want to know how much your bail will be as soon as possible. If you are required to see a judge before your bail amount is set, you are probably going to spend some time in jail, often a weekend in jail (this is sometimes a tactic used by the police -- they arrest you on Friday, meaning that the earliest you will see a judge to set bail is Monday), and even up to five days. However, if you were arrested for a common type of crime, jails often have a chart that can be used to set standard bail amounts which means getting out is a simple matter of paying the standard amount.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes that no person can have an excessive bail amount set against them. This has been held to mean that bail cannot be used as a way for the government to raise money for itself or punish a person for being arrested. The Eight Amendment is there to ensure that bail is not used for a purpose other than to guarantee that an arrested person comes back to court at the appointed time. The bail cannot be more than is reasonable to accomplish that.

Despite the theory behind the Eighth Amendment, judges often use excessively high bail amounts to prohibit an arrested individual from getting out of jail. This type of excessive bail is often used for people that have been arrested on suspicion of dealing drugs, murder or other crimes where flight is a real possibility. Many people have argued that this type of high bail violates the Eighth Amendment, but almost all have been unsuccessful.

There are also situations in which bail is set at a reasonable amount, but the arrestee still cannot afford to pay the bail. When this happens, the arrested individual must wait to ask the judge to lower the bail amount at a special bail hearing or during the defendant's first court appearance. Depending upon your financial situation, the judge may decide to lower your bail amount, which could making getting out of jail easier.
 

Thanks for the article . . .

I understand; however, I also agree with texasmom about intimidating witnesses . . . such a fine line.

http://hsvvoice.com/news/kevin-duck%E2%80%99s-murder-trial-start-march-29.html

2:01 am - November 17, 2015
Kevin Duck’s murder trial to start March 29



Kevin Duck

By LEWIS DELAVAN

Staff writer

Another delay has come in the murder trial of a Jessieville man.

In response to a defense motion, Garland County Circuit Judge John Homer Wright re-set the pretrial hearing for Kevin Duck to March 28, 2016. The trial is now set for March 29-April 1.

Duck, 32, is charged with first-degree murder in the December 2011 death of Dawna Natzke of Hot Springs Village. Natzke, a dispatcher for the HSV police department, was last seen leaving a party, allegedly with Duck, around 11 p.m. Dec. 21. The party was at the Village home of Scott Randall, who at the time was the Property Owners’ Association general manager.

A pre-trial hearing had been set for yesterday, with a four-day trial to have started today.

Previously, a pre-trial hearing had been set for last Feb. 9, then for June 1, with a jury trial to start the next day.

The murder charge carries a possible prison sentence of 10 to 40 years, or life imprisonment.

Duck has been held by the state Department of Correction since Feb. 25, 2014, when his probation on a Hot Spring County aggravated assault charge was revoked. Serving a six year term, he became eligible for parole on that charge in March.

The latest delay, similar to a delay granted in May, is related to Duck’s status as an indigent inmate.

Last May, Wright approved a defense motion declaring Duck an indigent for costs other than attorney fees.

The state Supreme Court in 2010 ruled that the state must pay reasonable expenses for defense of indigent defendants, even those with retained counsel.

Duck’s attorney Clay Janske told Wright the defendant’s mother is paying for the attorney, but Duck lacks funds for hiring an expert witness. Janske’s motion said obtaining a cellular telephone expert is essential to Duck’s defense.

Duck’s attorneys, Janske and Brian Johnson, initially asked for a delay because the state Public Defenders Commission had not approved Wright’s order for funds to assist in Duck’s defense.

Before Wright acted on the motion, the commission approved the funds.

But the attorneys amended their request, as the defendant is required to sign the commission’s paperwork, and the defense counsel had not received the paperwork back. Then the papers would have to be returned to the commission to receive the assistance.

Hot Spring County Circuit Court Judge Chris Williams on Feb. 25, 2014, ruled Duck had violated three conditions of probation, including allegedly committing the crime of murder, failing to report an address change and working out of state without proper authorization.

Duck was on probation for a November 2009 conviction of aggravated assault, a class-D felony.

He was convicted that year of brandishing a weapon on a man in the Bismarck area, in Hot Spring County.

Williams told the court that receiving a criminal indictment is sufficient grounds to revoke probation. Some people have the mistaken idea that one must be convicted of a crime to violate probation’s first condition, he said.

“It is interpreted wrong even by some judges,” Williams said. “Receiving a criminal charge alone is a violation of probation.”

The intent of the law is for probationers to avoid associating with people who are liable to commit crimes, the judge told Duck.

Williams said while a criminal defendant carries the presumption of innocence until conviction, a judge’s determination of sufficient “probable cause” to file a criminal charge is enough to revoke probation.

Thus, the murder charge alone was sufficient cause to revoke probation, Williams said.

Duck’s 2009 probation order allowed him to work out of state, as long as he obtained permission each time he traveled to work and provided a valid address.

He is currently serving in the Wrightsville Unit.