Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Gundersen held to stand trial - UPDATED

TS Blue Lake police chief held for trial
An arraignment on the information has been scheduled for May 12.
ER Gundersen to answer to 19 charges

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

****

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

we'll see. Isn't the old rape vulnerable to a statute of limitations challenge, becaue he wasn't held on the kidnapping aspect? and the new rape charges involve a victim who does not want to play?This is going to be an interesting little tar baby.

Anonymous said...

You are correct. With the kidnap out the case had to have been filed no later tan 2005. It makes no difference that there is a firearm enhancement. For the purpose of determining the applicable limitation of time an offense is deemed punishable by the maximum punishment prescribed by statute for the offense, regardless of the punishment actually sought or imposed. Any enhancement of punishment prescribed by statute shall be disregarded in determining the maximum punishment prescribed by statute for an offense pursuant to PC 805.

So it looks like the only thing he is left with are the gun charges, pills and the spousal rape with a woman who testified that she was coerced into this and it was a private matter between her and her husband.

What I am wondering is how the hell is any jury going to convict based upon this. Seems to me now the defense must finger point at the wife regarding the pills and guns. This is a sad state of affairs when she is treated like so much collateral damage

Anonymous said...

Someone posted that the statute of limitations for rape was 10 years which would make the 1989 rape charges relevant and the rape with a firearm too. Apparently Judge Feeney thought so as well. So there goes THAT argument.

Anonymous said...

First of all the crime allegedly occurred in 1999 NOT 1989.

Second - the statute of limitation is found in section 800. § 800"Offenses punishable by imprisonment for eight years or more"

"Except as provided in Section 799, prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for eight years or more shall be commenced within six years after commission of the offense."


Frankly, it is not the judges job to instruct the DA as to the statute of limitations. That is the defense attorney's job. (oh wait - does DA stand for defense attorney?)

Whatever 10:53 - if the da files it in the information, we all should expect the defense attorney to file a motion to dismiss that count.

I don't like rapists, but the law is the law.

Anonymous said...

From the 4/24 Gundersen thread
California Penal Code Section 801.1 (b) allows for a 10 year statute of limitations on sex crimes to include Rape, 261 of the Penal Code. That is why Clanton didn't argue it."

A simple google search shows clearly that the California statute of limitations for rape is 10 years.

Feeney dropped the kidnapping charges but not the rape of JD2 because the kidnapping charges weren't appropriate and the JD2 charges are. Clanton didn't even argue that the statute of limitations had expired.

The exception to felony statute of limitations IS RAPE. Look it up yourself.

The law IS the law even if you hate Gallegos.

Anonymous said...

Hating Gallegos seems to be the only reason anyone would criticize his conduct. Could be a chicken egg thing, ever ponder that? Why do people view him with such disdain?
However, he wins the SOL on this one. SOL was changed ( by then 803(h), later 801.1) effective Jan 1, 2001 for crimes committed after Jan 1 1995 (ie, former 6 year SOL had not run). There is a
due process argument still to be made because this case was initially reported and then dropped. That's a much trickier ball for the defense to carry.

The case is a very odd one, and I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall for the jury deliberations. One might be concerned as to wheteher the witnesses for either side seem like the kind of folks one would care to trust "beyond a reasonable doubt". We'll see.

Rose said...

If you read Paul Hagen's My Word in today's Times-Standard you received confirmation that Gallegos' suit was "politically motivated," Read that "filed at the behest of his handlers."

Now ask yourself, once again - If Paul's supporters and backers were the Aruan Brotherhood, and they wanted him to go after Kobe Bryant "get that black man" - would that be ok with you?

Now some people thought Kobe was guilty. Some defended him. Just like Palco. Some hate Palco. Some defend them.

Would it be ok? NO SANE PERSON WOULD SAY YES, yet Gallegos' defenders see no problem at all with him filing a suit, against the recommendations of the professionals in the DA's Office, whose knowledge of the law vastly exceeds his own. He did it anyway.

His history of bad judgement, and of filing charges capriciously - as in the case of Penny O'Gara (to send a message), Sean Marsh (to send a message), and yes, the Palco suit, the dismissal of felony charges against a campaign contributors son, the hiring of Tim Stoen, the firing and loss of virtually ALL the experienced prosecutors in his office, the corrupt campaign manager, the plagiarized My Words...

What's to like? And that is only part of the picture.

Face the facts. Stop making excuses for him like he is a little boy who needs protection for hiding his peas under the table.

If he worked for you, you would have fired him by now. For incompetence. For being late for meetings. For failing to show up for meetings....

THINK!

Anonymous said...

I agree too that the sol hasn't run on this. I actually hope they abolish the sol on sex crimes altogether, but this state hasn't. That being said, the case stinks to high heaven. I can only imagine what 12 jurors are going to think when Jane Doe 1 says she was lied and coerced into this and never made a report. That simply is not going to be taken well by any reasonable person.

My deepest apologies to her as a resident of this county. This ought not to happen to anyone by any person in law enforcement. It ain't right folks.

Anonymous said...

You would prefer that a man who raped 3 women go free? She isn't the only victim and the other one is freely testifying and hoping to get closure by him being convicted and imprisoned. JD1's testimony will help convict this monster of the crimes against JD2. No witness to a crime has the right to refuse to testify in a case like this and they shouldn't.

I believe Gundersen will be convicted and if appealed it will be upheld.

Anonymous said...

The due process argument on the SOL is wrong as well. The only creditable claim that Gunderson could make on a due process change in the law, is that the new SOL revived a previously expired case. See Stogner v. California. When they changed the SOL for Rape, by passing the new SOL in 2001, the '99 Rape case had not expired, so therefore no Due Process argument. Like other posters have said, the law is the law, and Clanton didn't argue it, and Judge Feeney didn't say it was time-barred.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Gunderesen needs an attorney who isn't buddies with the DA. Usually it would work in his favor but not this time. How hard will Clanton really fight, and how well can he read the law?

Anonymous said...

I disagree 10:48 - there is rather good due process claim. There is also a good claim to bifurcate the rape case by each victim in that it really seems that victim number two's case is pretty weak and has no evidence other than her claim.

But, we will all wait to see how this stinker plays out.