The Island Guardian
Locally Owned & Operated
(360)378-4900 - PO Box 38, Friday Harbor, Wa 98250
The Island Guardian is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists
Home | News | Business | Environment | Lifestyles | Entertainment | Columnists | Archives | Classifieds | Nag |
News
Current news
Government News
Political News
Service Organizations
Editorials
Obituaries
Guest Editorials
Business
Business
Real Estate
Environment
Environment
Weekly Nag
Weekly Nag
Letters to Editor
Letters to Editor
To Contact the Editor

Home » Archives » September 2016 » New Trial Granted Former Orcas School Teacher

[Previous entry: "OPALCO To Hold Open House Events"] [Next entry: "New Exhibitions At SIMA"]

09/21/2016: "New Trial Granted Former Orcas School Teacher"


Dr Gerald Grellet-Tinner was granted a new trial on Tuesday (09-20-16) after Judge Donald E. Eaton found that case law required the granting of a defense motion for a new trial, due to governmental misconduct.

New information that the defense argued cast doubt on the credibility of the victim, and a number of examples given to support a motion to dismiss the charges, or at the least grant a new trial, had been submitted to the Court for review and judgment.

During the hearing on Tuesday (09-20-16) Judge Eaton carefully, and meticulously went through the list of examples provided by the defense (related story), and while rejecting the majority of them one by one as not being relevant for action on the cited motions, he nonetheless found that information known to the prosecution had not been made available to the defense until well after the trial, and just before the court was ready to pronounce sentence on the defendant.

Judge Eaton read case law that stated: “Only the state can know what is undisclosed, and therefore must be responsible to gage the likely net affect of all such evidence, and make a disclosure from the point of reasonable probability is reached….[when] credibility evidence is known…must be provided to the defense.” Judge Eaton concluded by stating that “here that did not happen.”

And he did find that “the cumulative affect of the nondisclosure [of examples] resulted to prejudice to the defendant” and as a result the defendants right to a fair trial was impacted by the lack of disclosure.

While finding for the defense Judge Eaton noted that the failure to disclose was not willful, but resulted “in mismanagement of the information that was available" from county staff and the sheriff’s office.

In his conclusion Judge Eaton stated he would not grant the motions made by the defense to dismiss the charges, but that he would grant the motion for a new trial due to the evidence of government misconduct, because the newly discovered evidence “probably would [have] changed the results of the trial” had it been made known to the defense.

The fact that it was reveled in the new evidence that the victim was ambivalent throughout the investigation whether or not she would testify, or that the lead detective believed that the victim “had set the defendant up, Judge Eaton said “the fact of the matter is the defense only acquired this information after the trial.”

The information in question became known only because Sheriff Krebs wisely requested an independent investigation of charges against the lead detective, and that while finding no basis for wrongdoing on the original charges against the detective, the report revealed the new information that was not disclosed to the defense -information that resulted in motions to change the outcome of the juries finding of guilt.

What happen next left some in the courtroom wondering if they had missed something, given that due to the concern the defendant was a flight risk, he had been denied bail throughout the trial, but when the court asked Prosecutor Gaylord what the conditions should be imposed on Grellet-Tinner while awaiting the new trial on December 5th, 2016, Gaylord said no bail was required, but Dr Grellet-Tinner should not be allowed to leave the United States and was to have no contact with the victim.

With that, Grellet-Tinner smiled and made his exit.

During the hearing on Tuesday (09-20-16) Judge Eaton carefully, and meticulously went through the list of examples provided by the defense (related story), and while rejecting the majority of them one by one as not being relevant for action on the cited motions, he nonetheless found that information known to the prosecution had not been made available to the defense until well after the trial, and just before the court was ready to pronounce sentence on the defendant.

Judge Eaton read case law that stated: “Only the state can know what is undisclosed, and therefore must be responsible to gage the likely net affect of all such evidence, and make a disclosure from the point of reasonable probability is reached….[when] credibility evidence is known…must be provided to the defense.” Judge Eaton concluded by stating that “here that did not happen.”

And he did find that “the cumulative affect of the nondisclosure [of examples] resulted to prejudice to the defendant” and as a result the defendants right to a fair trial was impacted by the lack of disclosure.

While finding for the defense Judge Eaton noted that the failure to disclose was not willful, but resulted “in mismanagement of the information that was available" from county staff and the sheriff’s office.

In his conclusion Judge Eaton stated he would not grant the motions made by the defense to dismiss the charges, but that he would grant the motion for a new trial due to the evidence of government misconduct, because the newly discovered evidence “probably would [have] changed the results of the trial” had it been made known to the defense.

The fact that it was reveled in the new evidence that the victim was ambivalent throughout the investigation whether or not she would testify, or that the lead detective believed that the victim “had set the defendant up, Judge Eaton said “the fact of the matter is the defense only acquired this information after the trial.”

The information in question became known only because Sheriff Krebs wisely requested an independent investigation of charges against the lead detective, and that while finding no basis for wrongdoing on the original charges against the detective, the report revealed the new information that was not disclosed to the defense -information that resulted in motions to change the outcome of the juries finding of guilt.

What happen next left some in the courtroom wondering if they had missed something, given that due to the concern the defendant was a flight risk, he had been denied bail throughout the trial, but when the court asked Prosecutor Gaylord what the conditions should be imposed on Grellet-Tinner while awaiting the new trial on December 5th, 2016, Gaylord said no bail was required, but Dr Grellet-Tinner should not be allowed to leave the United States and was to have no contact with the victim.

With that, Grellet-Tinner smiled and made his exit.

Lifestyles
Lifetstyles
Entertainment
Entertainment
Columnists
John Evans
Greg Hertel
Mary Kalbert
Ron Keeshan
Gordy Petersen
Janice Peterson
Bruce Sallan
Teresa Smith
Terra Tamai
Amy Wynn
Classifieds
Classifieds
Helpful Links
Helpful Links
RSS Feed

Let the newspaper come to you with Real Simple Syndication

RSS 1.0 FEED
RSS 2.0 FEED
Atom 0.3 FEED
Powered by gm-rss 2.1.0




© 2015 The Island Guardian, Inc
All Rights Reserved.


Powered By Greymatter

To learn about this newspaper
or
how to place a free ad
or
to become contributor
click below:
About
The Island Guardian

or email:
publisher@
islandguardian.com