Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Gundersen faces additional charges - UPDATED

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

The Times-Standard reports Gundersen faces additional charges.

The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office charged Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen, who already stands accused of spousal rape, with more counts today, including the kidnapping and rape of another victim and selling, attempting to sell or transporting a machine gun.
Gundersen already stood accused of 12 counts of spousal rape while using “an intoxication and anesthetic substance,” as well as several charges allegedly committed while in custody: Attempting to prevent a victim from reporting a crime, willfully violating a court order and being in possession of a controlled substance without a prescription....


Related coverage, with links

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

13 comments:

  1. What?

    This smells bad if the alleged victim is his ex-wife and it is from March of 1999, since that is when the custody battle started.

    Didn't the statute of limitations ran on this in 2005? If so, why even charge it unless Gallegos is trying to taint things in his favor.

    I am not excusing Gunderson, if guilty he should rot, but this just smells plain bad.

    Can someone explain why PC 800 doesn't apply make charging this impossible?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only think I can think of is if was a minor, doesn't that add more time? This case is getting silly, we has the best armed DA's office in California, and the police are all on trial, even if the DA was on scene.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Uh - AnonR - I think this "victim" is his ex-wife.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 4:06, just a quick reaction without much research, the story is not specific as to exactly what section he's charged under, though it sounds like PC 209 - look at PC 801.1 - Ten year limitation for specified sex offenses. Not sure 209 is in there, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's a link to CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 799-805.

    It's easy to make the assumption that this is the ex-wife, because of some of the earlier reports - but again, you can't leap to any conclusions. Is there another previously unmentioned victim?

    Red is right -
    801.1. (a) Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in this chapter, prosecution for a felony offense described in Section 261, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, or 289, or Section 289.5, as enacted by Chapter 293 of the Statutes of 1991 relating to
    penetration by an unknown object, that is alleged to have been committed when the victim was under the age of 18 years, may be commenced any time prior to the victim's 28th birthday. (b) Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in this chapter, if subdivision (a) does not apply, prosecution for a felony offense described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290 shall be commenced within 10 years
    after commission of the offense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here's 209
    (a) Any person who seizes, confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or carries away another person by any means whatsoever with intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains, that person for ransom, reward or to commit extortion or to exact from another person any money or valuable thing, or any person who aids or abets any such act, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life without possibility of parole in cases in which any person subjected to any such act suffers death or bodily harm, or is intentionally confined in a manner which exposes that person to a substantial likelihood of death, or shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole in cases where no such person suffers death or bodily harm.

    (b) (1) Any person who kidnaps or carries away any individual to commit robbery, rape, spousal rape, oral copulation, sodomy, or any violation of Section 264.1, 288, or 289, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole.

    (2) This subdivision shall only apply if the movement of the victim is beyond that merely incidental to the commission of, and increases the risk of harm to the victim over and above that necessarily present in, the intended underlying offense.

    (c) In all cases in which probation is granted, the court shall, except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served by a lesser penalty, require as a condition of the probation that the person be confined in the county jail for 12 months. If the court grants probation without requiring the defendant to be confined in the county jail for 12 months, it shall specify its reason or reasons for imposing a lesser penalty.

    (d) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to supersede or affect Section 667.61. A person may be charged with a violation of subdivision (b) and Section 667.61. However, a person may not be punished under subdivision (b) and Section 667.61 for the same act that constitutes a violation of both subdivision (b) and Section 667.61.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1999 court report cited by the Times-Standard daily newspaper includes an allegation by Gundersen's ex-wife that he drugged her and raped her.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The new charges could be someone that came forward after Gunderson got busted. It could be someone making it up to get back at him, but I doubt it.

    This is Gallegos hitting the Super Lotto, prosecuting a cop that really did something wrong. This will be his fallback when the Douglas/Zanotti fiasco goes south.

    Gunderson was wrong from day one. The sad aspect to this is Gag's fans will use this to smere all cops. Guys like Noela Adamson put out crap that all cops are meth and steroid using killers that target the homeless and diabled people with a joint.

    PVG's luck is holding out. For now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Gunderson was wrong from day one."

    day one of what? his life? his tenure in blue lake? his police career?

    and who made you judge?

    ReplyDelete
  10. spare me numb nuts

    ReplyDelete
  11. 4:06 wrote, "This smells bad...".

    It has from the get- go, but these latest charges have me curious. Gags has the reputation for being very lenient, in most cases. Here, it looks like they're really trying to hammer Gunderson by adding more and more charges.

    It seems they're desperate to get Gunderson for something. I'm thinking this latest round of charges is actually the normal prosecution tactic of over- charging with offenses in the hopes the defendant will plead out to fewer and lesser charges rather than fight all the charges with Not Guilty pleas in court.

    Sure seems fishy. One thing Gags seems to have going for him is that, with the exception of his attorney and his wife (the supposed victim), we haven't heard anyone else standing up for Gundersen. Sounds like he doesn't have a friend in the world.

    Might there be a reason for that? Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well if it is his ex wife then 801.1 doesn't apply and he shouldn't have filed charges knowing that IF TRUE that they were time barred. Unless of course he wanted to try and taint public opinion knowing that the facts would never come out. This is really troubling on a procedural level. It just plain stinks all around.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually, 799 will allow him to charge this but only if it is a kidnapping with intent to commit a sexual assault. He couldn't have charged a simple kidnapping nor a sexual assault. But because 208 is a life case, he can. If he doesn't prove the intent element at the prelim, then it is over.

    When I first heard about this, I heard he was being charged with another rape. Well, an interesting way to get around his little statute problem is to not charge the rape but a kidnap with intent. Lets wait to hear the 10 year old evidence.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.