Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Today's coverage - 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

****

Aside from what was reported yesterday - questions about immunity
ER Both “Jane Does” testify, immunity deals criticized
Immunity is usually granted so people don’t incriminate themselves, said University of San Francisco Law Professor Robert Talbot.

In this case, Doe 2 pleaded the Fifth Amendment and received an immunity deal.

Doe 1, however, was offered an immunity deal when being interviewed by investigators from his office, not for being on the stand, Gallegos said after the hearing.

If Doe 1 pleads the Fifth, immunity could be offered to her, he said.


TS Defense questions alleged rape victim
When Jane Doe 1 took the stand, she testified that she would not have appeared without having been subpoenaed. She testified that she was hired by former Blue Lake Chief Floyd Stokes, and became romantically involved with Gundersen while on the police force in 2001. They married in 2005, she said.

Jane Doe 1 said that she had been looking for photographs that might have been taken without her consent before she talked to law enforcement about something Gundersen had been doing to her “that was not all right.”

She said she later learned that some photos had been discovered on a computer hard drive owned by Gundersen, which had been seized during a warrant search on his McKinleyville home in February.

Clanton objected to the line of questioning, saying it appeared its purpose was meant to smear Gundersen's character.

Gallegos argued that the photos offer circumstantial evidence to corroborate Jane Doe 2's claims that she was raped under the influence of a controlled substance.


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

****

17 comments:

  1. Well, we're not even to the jury yet and it looks like both of the witnesses the DA is putting on need to be coerced to testify. Yes, that's what immunity is, coercion. That's what a subpoena is, coercion. But with the testimony in the can, the DA can proceed on the transcripts alone at trial.
    This should be good. No matter what happens, the trio of Clanton, Gunderson, and Gallegos, who so richly deserve each other, comes out smelling like a manure pit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It sounds to me like the Jane Does participated in something illegal for which they want immunity. Calling immunity coercion is stretching beyond the breaking point. Why are people so upset over this rapist coming to trial? What about those BLPD cops who allegedly beat Jane Doe 2? This is getting bigger and uglier day by day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I want to know if Johnson, after promising to talk to his chief, did so, and if his chief talked to Gundersen. Did Gundersen ask his subordinates to beat Jane Doe 2? I can't believe that Johnson doesn't remember this case. How many cases has he dealt with where the alleged perp was a police chief?

    ReplyDelete
  4. 9:24, what immunity does is compel the witness to give otherwise potentially damaging testimony which would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment but for the grant of immunity. Immunity only happens when the witness refused to testify under the Fifth, and then is compelled to do so.
    It is compulsion, pure and simple. It is fairly rare that immunity has go be granted to a rape victim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is fairly rare that a rape victim is a member of the police department who needs immunity from prosecution before answering questions regarding their police activities with the rapist. They aren't being given immunity about the rape but apparently about illegal activities they participated in with Gundersen aside from the rape. This would be apropos of someone, for example, who bought illegal drugs and then was raped being given immunity from self incrimation regarding their own illegal actions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And illegal activity is the kind of thing that makes jurors wonder whether a person can be trusted to tell the truth. Especially if the witness is a sworn peace officer, a juror might expect that telling the truth should be a source of pride, not the product of compulsion. "you can believe me when I claim rape and kidnap, even if I lied cheated and stole whilst sworn to uphold the law, and even though I wouldn't be admitting that stuff except the grant of immunity I got compels me to do so". Lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. She testified that she didn’t wear a uniform, and couldn’t recall if she carried a gun.

    She couldn’t recall if she was given a badge number. She didn’t get a gun, but did own one.

    When asked how long it was between her working in Fort Bragg and Trinidad, Jane Doe No. 2 testified that it was all a blur and wasn’t sure.

    Jane Doe No 2 can't seem to remember anything. WTF

    ReplyDelete
  8. She doesn't have to remember the photos found on his computer taken while she was unconscious. You guys are so creepy with how you are looking for the thinnest little straw to exonerate Gundersen who has been accused of drugging and raping 3 women, violenting raping one of them, all the same MO. You are unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No one is looking to exonerate anyone. A number of people are refusing to allow the search for justice to overlook the gaping professional inadequacies, at several levels, amongst a variety of agencies, that ARE being overlooked by a DA who has a pressing need to look good, as opposed to any interest in all in doing good.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So all you care about is Gallegos looking bad and would rather a rapist go free than have him win one. You take vindictiveness to a hideous level.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice attempt at spin 5:21.

    Conversely, one could say that you don't care what he does wrong - you will protect and defend him at the expense of all rights and due process. You will look the other way as he decimates the CAST program, loses grants, destroys the office, prosecutes innocent men like Sean Marsh... YOu don't care that he released the alleged rape victim's name to the press.

    It doesn't matter to you if he is incompetent. It doesn't matter to you if he is moral.

    Hey, he just lost the Appeal to the CA Supreme Court. Your case is dead. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So where is the outrage for the DA of San Diego county who convicted that woman of murdering her marine husband, then had the verdict overturned because of the incompetence of her trial counsel. Shortly before new trial, they dismiss, and say the science was faulty, and the guy really died of a heart attack. Gee lady, sorry about those 876 days. You know the system ain't perfect, but most people wait to hear all the evidence before passing judgment. Do you blame the jury? Not here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's the story about wanting to have 10 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man go to jail?

    Gags is trying to hold a trial in the media and is even getting off the surfboard to hit the courts. It stinks that Gags is making this more about him than the victims, which one seems to be unable to remember if she ate blueberry muffins in the morning or oatmeal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't give a SHIT about Gallegos. I want a serial rapist with a badge in prison. You want him to get off just because it would make Gallegos look bad. That is disgusting and shows what a woman haters you really are, including Rose. People like you make people like me support Gallegos. You are so vile that anything you oppose gets supported.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I want a serial rapist with a badge in prison.

    So do I, only problem is, I also believe in justice and a real trial, you know that whole innocent until proven guilty pesky problem.

    So far, all I see is a witness forced to testify against her will and one that can't remember anything. You don't forget a badge number, or if you had a badge or not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 9:49, you should care about Gallegos. That is the whole point of this particular site, as I understand it. I certainly want serial rapists (with or without a badge) held accountable. The question is, is PVG able to do that? Can he prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to 12 members of the community that Gunderson is a serial rapist? Is the evidence there? If yes, can PVG present it coherently to a trier of fact? If the evidence is not there, why was it charged? Nobody wants to see a dirtbag skate, certainly I don't, but at this point, based on the coverage in the media (which is all I know about the case) several serious, possibly fatal problems, have been presented through the testimony. The Jane Doe 2 charges have a problem in that PVG must prove asportation; the evidence is that they were alone in a residence (with 3 children) and he moved her from one room to another. Is that asportation? Probably not, under daniels and that line of cases - how doid that increase the peril to the victim? Haven't heard the argument yet, it's up to Judge Feeney, but my take is that that's incidental movement. Could be I'm wrong. Anyhow, as others have pointed out, unless PVG makes the PC 209, then he has a problem with the statute of limitations and prosecution for rape would be time-barred. That is over and above what appear to be substantial credibility issues with Jane Doe. As to Jane Doe 1, she has apparently testified that she told Gundersen he could have sex with her while she was asleep. Isn't that a complete defense? Additionally, she said she was taking Lunesta; take a look at the Lunesta website and you'll see why that's a problem for the prosecution of rape while unconscious. In short, people apparently have engaged in activities such as driving and sexual intercourse while unconscious but apparently awake. Time will tell, maybe PVG is smarter then I give him credit for, all indications to the contrary notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Red - I agree.

    And I also know about this drug. See below:

    Monday, April 7, 2008
    Lunesta: Pathway to Rest or Highway to Hell?


    I took the pill.

    I did not, however, wake up feeling rested and refreshed. Instead I felt more like I had died and then someone jerked me out of non-existence and forced me to go to work. I don't even remember going to sleep. I was awake, wondering if this stuff was going to work and then all of the sudden it was 9 hours later, my alarm was blaring and I couldn't lift up my arm to turn it off. Delightful, huh?

    When you're taking Lunesta you have to make sure you have at least 8 hours of sleep. If you wake up before the full eight hours the main side effect is amnesia. Seriously, amnesia. Not just forgetfulness or absent mindedness, AMNESIA. You might not know where you live. I'm cutting it close tonight after watching the NCAA Championship with some friends. I had meant to stay for about 45 minutes and then responsibly head home. But the combination of a great game and some bizarre conversation proved too tempting to pass up. By the time I got home and walked the dog it was 11:19pm. If I'm going to get eight hours I now have 41 minutes in which to fall asleep. I just popped a Lunesta, so if this post just sort of stops, that's why.

    My experience of feeling dead, zombie-esque and then generally crappy all day made me think that I should look at the side effects of my little nighttime helper a bit more closely.

    According to drugs.com:

    I can't...drink, drive, operate heavy machinery, pilot an airplane or do anything else that might make me tired.

    I can expect...
    - day-time drowsiness, dizziness, "hangover" feeling
    -problems with memory or concentration
    -anxiety, depression, nervous feeling
    -headache
    -nausea, stomach pain, loss of appetite
    -dry mouth
    -unusual or unpleasant taste in your mouth
    -mild skin rash
    Okay. None of it sounds too great, but I can sacrifice in the name of sleep!

    I might encounter...
    - aggression, agitation, changes in behavior
    -thoughts of hurting yourself
    -hallucinations
    Aggression, hallucinations, thoughts of hurting myself?! Suddenly I have a nervous feeling...or is that the medicine? How can you tell?

    Some people report...
    -short term amnesia
    -depersonalization (feeling out of body, like nothing is real)
    -engaging in activities such as driving, eating, or making phone calls and later having no memory of the activity
    If I find out that I'm calling people in the middle of the night without any memory of what we talked about I'm going to be seriously upset. I'm going to be so mad I don't know what I'll do. There will be some serious aggression...or wait, maybe it's the meds talking...

    And finally, Lunesta may be...
    -carcinogenic and mutogenic, so I may end up growing a cancerous arm out of my back
    -habit-forming
    I'm getting so worked up about the side effects I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep tonight...maybe I'll just take another Lunesta.

    Posted by Melody at 11:32 PM

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.