Saturday, July 26, 2008

Rape Crisis Center to fight subpoena - 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

****

The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office subpoenaed a rape crisis counselor who worked with Jane Doe 1 to testify at former Blue Lake Police Chief Dave Gundersen’s trial.

As a result, the North Coast Rape Crisis Center filed a quash motion on the grounds of doctor-patient confidentiality.

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he subpoenaed the counselor for “transactional” reasons and not to hear testimony on whatever counseling took place with Doe 1.

“I’m completely disinterested in counseling,” he said.

When contacted, a representative from the North Coast Rape Crisis Center couldn’t confirm or deny that Doe 1 had any contact with them.

Gallegos used the example of a doctor who walks into a supermarket and sees their patient.

The doctor can testify as to whether they saw the patient in the supermarket in order to establish an alibi, for example, but not to any discussions when in a counseling session, he said.

In legal terms, to quash means to annul or suppress an indictment, a conviction or an order, according to a legal dictionary.

In this case, Gallegos said that the reason to quash the subpoena is for confidentiality reasons....

The quash motion will be heard by Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson on July 30.


☛ ER Rape Crisis Center to fight subpoena

Links to reports on the Gundersen case

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

****

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

This whole thing seems comical. Not the Genderson trial but the DA and the prosecution of criminals in Humboldt County.

Fred said...

That's pretty wild.

Anonymous said...

If Jane Doe 1 signs a medical information release to allow the doctor to talk about her problem, there is no doctor - patient confidentiality. Which Jane Doe is 1, the ex or the soon to be ex?

Rose said...

I guess one question would be - was she coerced into signing her rights over, if she did that?
Jane Doe “felt coerced” into making statementsTestimony during David Gundersen’s preliminary hearing Wednesday revealed a different view on evidence that led to his arrest for spousal rape.

“Jane Doe 1” testified that she “felt coerced” by officials working in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office into making a statement about non-consensual sex with Gundersen.

Testimony of “Jane Doe 2” concluded Wednesday and the issue of immunity agreements came before the court again when Judge John T. Feeney granted Doe 1 immunity.


Expert: Rape victims can be forced to take witness stand

DA mistake violates victims’ rights

Anonymous said...

"Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he subpoenaed the counselor for “transactional” reasons and not to hear testimony on whatever counseling took place with Doe 1.

“I’m completely disinterested in counseling,” he said.

When contacted, a representative from the North Coast Rape Crisis Center couldn’t confirm or deny that Doe 1 had any contact with them.

Gallegos used the example of a doctor who walks into a supermarket and sees their patient."


========
Makes sence to me. I can' talk about what a patient said or any observations BUT I can say that I saw them at a given time or place. But that's it.

Many patients complain that I don't say "HI" when were in a market or at a scoial event. Or that I'm "cold" to them, when in fact I'm only respecting the patient medical proffesional code of confedence. (HIPPA et al.)

By ID-ing who what I am, I'm breaching that confedance but I sure as heck say, "Yes I saw so an so at work or at the store."

"Yes such and such patient had an apoinment at 3:30 on Tue the 22nd" Gag can suppona the office apointment book, legally.

I think Gag is right on here.

DT

Anonymous said...

heck, everyone knows what a girl really wants is .. . .
immunity. Just give the witness that, and they'll
say whatever the DA wants. Of course, the jury may
see through that.

Anonymous said...

That is a problem that all who work in health care can relate to, DT. Confidentiality is such a huge issue (rightly so) that even passing on a greeting from one person to another, i.e. tell your mom I said hi and to call me, is refused so as to avoid telling the recipient of the message where the person was seen or it being obvious where they were seen by refusing to say.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with DT on this matter. The difference between seeing someone in a store or a regular doctors office is that they could be there for any number of reasons. Seeing someone in a rape crisis center (assuming they don't work there) would imply they were there because they were raped. Is there any other reason to be there?

Anonymous said...

For a guy who never gets around to turning over his own {CAST} records, Mr. Gallegos is sure hot on getting ahold of everyone else's.

Anonymous said...

Am I missing something here.

The rape crisis advocate is called. She arrives, counsels and leaves. How can that be compared with Gags' remarks:

"The doctor can testify as to whether they saw the patient in the supermarket in order to establish an alibi, for example, but not to any discussions when in a counseling session, he said."

Looks like she isn't being called to give the woman an alibi since she wasn't seen in a supermarket but for what happened when the advocate arrived.

The supermarket example is just plain stupid.

red said...

There is a specific section in the Evidence Code (I think it's 1050 or thereabouts, don't have a book handy) which makes communications between a rape crisis counselor and a victim privileged. If I recall the victim can waive the privilege. This is separate from, though similar too, physician-patient privilege. What PVG appears to be saying (by his analogy) is that the counselor whose testimony he seeks is a precipient witness to something outside of any counseling, and that's why he wants the testimony. Huuh. I suppose that's possible.