Pages

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Defense: "I don't think I've ever seen a case with such a weak set of facts brought before a jury" - 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

****

A Plea Offer takes 31 counts, including 24 charges of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, forcible rape of a second victim with a firearm enhancement, attempting to dissuade a witness, violating a court order and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with an attached silencer and reduces it to one count of spousal rape and another of forcibly raping a second victim.

The Ts reports that Gundersen, who is facing 28 felony charges, turned down a plea deal that could have landed him in prison for anywhere from nine to 26 years, attorneys said in court Tuesday.

”We rejected it in its entirety,” Gundersen's attorney Russell Clanton said of the deal, in which Gundersen would have pleaded guilty to one count of spousal rape and another of forcibly raping a second victim. “Our position is that the defendant has no criminal liability.”

After Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson asked for a progress report on settlement discussions, District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he had offered the plea deal and Clanton said the defense declined it.

The defense, Clanton said, would only be agreeable to a deal in which Gundersen would plead guilty to one of the misdemeanor counts he is facing in exchange for dismissing the remaining 30 charges....

...(Judge) Watson also heard oral arguments regarding two motions Clanton filed last month seeking a change of venue and to have the charges of spousal rape tried separately from the charges of forcibly raping a second victim...

Watson essentially put the change of venue motion on hold, saying he would wait to see if it looks like an impartial jury can be seated in the case before ruling on the motion.

On the second motion, Clanton argued that the spousal rape charges concerning Jane Doe 1 are inherently different than the forcible rape charge regarding Jane Doe 2. The alleged acts are separated by seven or eight years, involve two different victims and two distinct sets of circumstances, Clanton argued.

Clanton also argued that Jane Doe 2 is an unreliable witness and, consequently, the forcible rape charge is much weaker than those concerning Gundersen's alleged conduct with Jane Doe 1.

”I've been a defense attorney for years and I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen a case with such a weak set of facts brought before a jury,” Clanton said of the forcible rape charge.

He said the potential for prejudice in trying the charges together is “just overwhelming,” as the stronger Jane Doe 1 charges would likely buttress the weaker Jane Doe 2 charge in the jury's eyes.

After Tuesday's court appearance, Clanton said he was glad Watson checked in on settlement talks because it helps ensure both sides are communicating about the case. However, Clanton said he and Gallegos are far apart in plea discussions and reiterated that the only plea Gundersen would accept is a misdemeanor charge, and that would only be to avoid a trial in which the defendant faces virtually a life sentence if convicted on all charges.

”That's the only thing we would ever plea to,” Clanton said. “There is no chance in the world we would plea to anything that involves felony culpability. He has no criminal liability in any of this.”
TS Gundersen turns down plea deal
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

****

3 comments:

  1. Let me get this straight. On the eve of jury selection in the most publicized case in county history, the judge and lawyers discuss plea negotiations in open court so the papers can print all about it.
    That shouldn't affect the change of venue issue at all.

    Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Defense: "I don't think I've ever seen a case with such a weak set of facts brought before a jury".

    I wonder if he really means that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That, or is it just hyperbole?

    I still want to know why she needed immunity to testify as a victim.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed for the time-being.