◼ Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012
****
TS Gundersen attorney wants change of venue
ER Gundersen’s attorney accuses media of sensationalism
The publicity surrounding former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen’s arrest and upcoming trial has tainted the local jury pool, his attorney argued in a motion to change the trial’s venue.
“All local media outlets reacted with lead stories upon the arrest of then-Chief Gundersen, rabidly extolling the salacious nature of the principal allegations,” Gundersen’s attorney Russell Clanton wrote in the 12-page motion. “The nature of this case has titillated the community given the themes of sex, drugs and guns, which appear in virtually all of the articles offered up by the media.”
...Judge Miles ordered that District Attorney Paul Gallegos submit his opposing motion to the court by Monday.
...“Whenever there’s more than standard publicity, we get them,” he (Gallegos) said. “We try to avoid pre-trial publicity, but sometimes it just happens.”
TS Gundersen's attorney seeks to dismiss charges
Among other things...After the preliminary hearing, Superior Court Judge John Feeney reduced the kidnapping or transporting of a second victim with the purpose of rape charge to forcible rape, stating he found the transportation to be “merely incidental” to the alleged rape.
Saying he respectfully disagreed with the court, Gallegos left the count as originally charged.
Clanton argues in the motion that Gallegos was not allowed under the penal code to “override a magistrate's factual findings,” and the kidnapping or transportation count should be dismissed.
...In all, Clanton argues that 29 of the 33 charges facing his client should be dismissed. Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles set a July 9 date to hear the matter.
In a separate motion, Clanton argues that the rape charge concerning Jane Doe 2 should be tried separately from the other allegations facing his client. Clanton argues that Jane Doe 2's testimony is unreliable and unbelievable and should not be considered alongside that of Jane Doe 1.
”Accordingly, failure to sever the counts reflecting two separate and distinct scenarios will permit the weaker Jane Doe 2 count to be bolstered by what amounts to de facto propensity evidence offered by Jane Doe 1,” Clanton wrote.
He argues the two alleged crimes are different in nature and joining them creates the possibility of prejudicial evidence being “leached from one to the other as the individual counts are explored before the jury.”
Gallegos said he sees why Clanton would move to separate the charges, but thinks they should be heard by the same jury.
”Our position is the cases should be tried together and that the law supports that,” he said. “But, we'll have to see what the judge decides.”
Related coverage, with links
Huh? He's been trying to AVOID publicity? Nuh uh.
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
****
Well that's dumb. If he stays here he gets to go against Paul.
ReplyDeleteUh - Whaaaaa.
ReplyDeleteHe still gets to go against Paul. It will just be in a different county. This is not a motion to recuse the DA, just to change the venue.
Though the DA SHOULD recuse himself.
ReplyDeleteNo Rose - the DA should be thrown out of office.
ReplyDeleteNope - lets see him try this sucka before a real judge and jury.
Lets see how the real world reacts to an ass like that who threatened the victim with jail unless she did what the DA said.
This oughta be interesting, but expensive, but what's new. Gallegos has cost us way too much.
So there are still a few people left in Humboldt County who believe rapists should go free and of course they are here on Rose's blog. Wouldn't you know it.
ReplyDeleteNote 3:45. His wife has filed for divorce FINALLY! She isn't going to be a reluctant witness :)
There are a few people left in Humboldt County who believe rapists should go free. They all voted for Mr. Gallegos.
ReplyDeleteJust because I think PVG is a chowderhead does not mean I think rapists should go free. The question is, can PVG make this case? Nothing I have seen so far in the media leads me to think he can. He has been trying this case in the media, he has personally vouched for the guilt of the accused (which is one reason I believe the change of venue will ultimately be granted).
I agree with Rose, he should have recused himself. Clanton could get rid of him but why would he? A competent prosecutor might then try the case. Although if at any point PVG decides the case is a loser he will probably just dump it on someone, as he did with that retrial in the Rollins case. I halfway expect him to palm the motion to dismiss in Douglas-Zanotti off on some haplass subordinate.
He has to write a response, right? Perhaps he can explain why he didn't call the expert witnesses, and why he criticized the one he did call, for starters.
ReplyDeleteAnother long-term project for Gallegos. "Hey anybody got any ideas? I'm kinda under a deadline..."
4:42 - You are obtuse. The woman didn't want to testify because it was a private matter between her and her estranged husband. The fact that she is getting a divorce had nothing to do with it. It is a privacy issue and the fact that the DA threatened her with and illegal arrest doesn't bother you? You evidently don't care squat about the rights of victims. They are obviously collateral damage in your eyes and you are blinded by your unfaltering dedication to an incompetent and corrupt DA. I feel sorry for you, but not as sorry as I do for Gundersen's poor exploited wife who has been literally fucked by everyone including the DA who doesn't give a damn about anything but getting his name in the paper.
ReplyDeleteIt's odd that PVG took the position that the rape victim could be forced to testify, and it's odd that her attorney did not help her stick it out, because there is a bill on the governor's desk right now
ReplyDeleteseeking to give DV victims the right to refuse to testify JUST LIKE RAPE VICTIMS HAVE without any consequences. 1219b gives rape victims more rights that 1219c gives dv victims, and their advocates want parity. PVG's claim that rape victims can be forced to testify seems to lack persuasive force outside Humboldt county.
gov signed the witness protection bill.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politickerca.com/adam-keigwin/1367/new-law-grants-protection-domestic-violence-survivors
Does anyone know when the next court appearance is for the Douglas/Zanotti persecution? And which judge it will be before?
ReplyDeleteA change of venue would allow PVG and his best buddy Russ to have an out of town vacation at the county expense.