Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Opening the can of worms - 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

****


If District Attorney Paul Gallegos has his way, David Gundersen's ex-wife will testify when the former Blue Lake police chief stands trial for allegedly raping his current wife with the use of an intoxicant.
Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson is expected to hear arguments Friday on a motion Gallegos filed with the court seeking to admit testimony of alleged sexual offenses against his former wife.

☛ TS Gallegos asking for Gundersen's ex-wife to take stand 7/23/08
Related coverage, with links

Update: ☛ ER Ex-wife’s testimony will be heard
☛ TS Gundersen's ex-wife to testify 7/29/08

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:

Fred said...

Another can of worms to open would be calling Gallegos' wife to the stand to find out how much she had spoken to him about her custody lawsuit and just what was said.

Of course, I suppose that could be bad for the defense, as well, but it would be interesting.

Rose said...

Y-ep, that would seem to be a bit problematic

Anonymous said...

Read the Times-Stnadard comments
red
If the judge does allow the testimony by ex then probably Clanton will be allowed to get into the fact that ex and Gunderson were involved in a contested family law matter in which ex is represented by Mr. Gallegos' wife. Bet the jury will love that.
whatever says
The Prof is a little out of date, and about 180 degrees wrong. The presumption under 1108 and the case law interpreting that evidence code section is that the evidence of prior sex crimes WILL be admitted. However, Gunderson's case may be an exception, because the judge has severed the other charges; it makes little sense to do that if the evidence is coming in anyway.
Criminal Justice 101 says
whatever wrote:"The Prof is a little out of date, and about 180 degrees wrong. The presumption under 1108 and the case law interpreting that evidence code section is that the evidence of prior sex crimes WILL be admitted. However, Gunderson's case may be an exception, because the judge has severed the other charges; it makes little sense to do that if the evidence is coming in anyway."
Charges/Convictions of prior sex acts.......... not allegations.
red says
I take it you flunked:

Evidence of uncharged sexual offenses is so uniquely probative in sex crimes prosecutions it is presumed admissible without regard to the limitations of evidence code's general prohibition on character evidence. People v. Britt (App. 3 Dist. 2002) 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 290, 104 Cal.App.4th 500
red says
So good I had to say it twice.
whatever says
Prof Levine is a civil lawyer who probably hasnt seen the evidence code in a decade. uchastings.edu/?pid=734, Of course, he might be teaching someone
Criminal Justice 101. But of course this isn't a Criminal Justice issue, it's an evidence question. And Red got it right. By the way, 101, Charges ARE allegations. No conviction or even a police report is necessary. In this case, given the weakness of the comparative allegations, it appears the Court is applying rule 352.
Good says
Thank you, Red. It's rare that we get good information -- especially legal information -- on these boards, it is to be savored.
humco says
red wrote: "I take it you flunked:
Evidence of uncharged sexual offenses is so uniquely probative in sex crimes prosecutions it is presumed admissible without regard to the limitations of evidence code's general prohibition on character evidence. People v. Britt (App. 3 Dist. 2002) 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 290, 104 Cal.App.4th 500"

show off
anon says
lmao - afternoon Red, Whatever and Humco!

Oh this evidence will come in folks and it will get entertaining too. What do you three want to bet that Clanton won't oppose the motion.
red says
And to be fair to the prof, it sounds as if he was talking about Ev Code 1101 - the red hat example fits that section. So there may be some misunderstanding here. Or it is all part of the conspiracy.

red said...

Yeah, what I said up there. I can see why PVG wants to get the testimony of ex in front of the jury; the risk here though is that it might allow Mr. Clanton to get into a lot of stuff that the jury would not otherwise hear about, including that ex is involved in a family law matter in which she is represented by Mrs. PVG. He can't count on Ev Code 352 to keep it out. It's a judgment call, and that is the area in which PVG has demonstrated some deficit on previous occasions. Well, I can armchair quarterback all I want, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. He may end up making me look like an idiot yet.

Rose said...

My guess is Gallegos is going to be spending more time trying to keep his witnesses from talking - saying things he doesn't want out there - than getting his points across - and it'll be up to Clanton, if he's smart enough, to get them talking.

How he's going to address the fact that his wife is representing the ex in a custody dispute I just can't even begin to imagine. Because from what's in the paper, the ex is involved in all of this mess.

Stephen said...

Well, the important thing I see here is that can of worms picture which I'm going to steal and use in my stuff because it so apt for many of my topics. Hope you don't mind, Rose.

Fred said...

I think she stole the picture from Ekovox(?), or one of the other bloggers, anyway.

Rose said...

:) Google - Images - Can of Worms