Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Motion of severance granted w/update - 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

****

Former police chief now faces two trials 7/22/08

The Humboldt County Superior Court granted a motion of severance by former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen’s attorney, meaning that all allegations pertaining to the two Jane Does in the case must be tried separately...

On July 15, Clanton argued before Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson that jurors may find it difficult to separate the weaker, more inflammatory allegations that involve Doe 2 from the stronger case that pertains to Doe 1.

“I don’t think any jury can do that,” he said.

He said it would create an undue prejudice that would hurt Gundersen’s chance for a fair trial.

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said that day that the defense’s argument was not based on reason, but on emotion.

“There is absolutely no indication that will happen,” he said.

Watson ruled in favor of Clanton...

As potential jurors continue to be individually interviewed, it’s unclear whether this jury being formed will hear the allegations pertaining to Doe 1 or Doe 2 first, Gallegos said.

“Everything has obstacles,” he said. “You have to move forward.”


☛ TS Gallegos asking for Gundersen's ex-wife to take stand 7/23/08
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

****

8 comments:

  1. Indeed, the elephant in the room is whether the judge allows 2 to testify at the Lunesta trial. It would appear that is not going to happen, but in Numboldt, who knows. Anyone who knows the game knows that PVG tried to pile on charges until the defense cracked and took a deal. It may be that this house of cards tactic is not the best way to impress a judge with the merits of the case. Well, on to jury selection and to the testimony of Jane 2 in front of a jury. Wonder what surprises she will have, and for whom?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The judge will NOT let JD 2 testify at the trial re: JD 1. Why? He would never have granted the motion to sever if the evidence were coming in anyway. Guess he is saying the the cases are too weak and too different and that the DA took two cases he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt individually and put them together to try and get a jury to convict on emotion and not reason. This really looks bad for the DA. It looks like he doesn't give a shit about the consitutional rights of anyone. Not the community, not the defendant and not the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It won't look bad if he gets a conviction. However, if he does not get a conviction and the defense is able to make a connection in open court between the DA's wife and one of the victims, that will look bad. And if Jane 2 makes it clear that she did not want her husband prosecuted, but the DA threatened her despite the clear legislative intent to protect rape (and now DV also) victims, that might look bad. And if the defense can show that the DA was good buddies with Vroman, the former Mendo DA (not a cop, the DA himself) who had fully automatic weapons at his home, that might look bad.
    Anyway, it should all be fun to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought JD 1 was the wife and JD2was the old girlfriend.

    But, Doe 1 says what she was reported to have said during the earlier hearing, this county may be paying big bucks to her and her estranged husband.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That seems to be where it's leading. That plea offer, and just all the weirdness around this... I guess we'll just have to see because right now the only info to go on is what has been in the papers.

    Areas of concern would be -
    #1. Gallegos' wife's representation of the ex-wife in a custody dispute.

    #2. The fact that the alleged victim says outright that her testimony was coerced in a 7 hour inquisition.

    #3, The fact that she says outright that she did not want to file charges.

    #4. Gallegos releasing all of her personal information.

    #5. The question of the effects of Lunesta.

    #6. Since they both worked for the same police dept. who is to say who took what home, and the question of whether or not that would be SOP for police officers in similar small-town conditions.

    #7. The fact that they were married, whether the relationship was perfect or not, if any of what is alleged really adds up to rape in the minds of jurors.

    That's just off the top of my head - not to mention the 'get the cops" mindset...

    ReplyDelete
  6. correct, earlier writer confused 1 and 2.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re update. Anyone who knows anytning about EC 1108 knows that Professor Levine does not. 1108 strongly favors the admission of other sex crimes, which may have ocurred before or after the case in court. The case law is overwhelming. What does Levine teach? If it's criminal law or evidence, some one should get their money back.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well I am laughing at this fiasco. Seems the best thing that could happen would be if the former Mrs. Gundersen took the stand and explained a few things.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.