(Synopsis) - the short version.
"The infliction of cruelty with good conscience is a delight to moralists..." - Bertrand Russell
It appears that an investigation into the medical practice of Dr. Weitzel was initiated in response to his practice with a neurologist of pain control for headache patients. He had been invited to share office space with a physician who pioneered the "Salt Lake Headache Clinic." Dr. Weitzel saw many of these patients, especially those deemed to have a psychosocial component to their headache etiology. The patients occasionally came in to the office suffering from acute migraine. If necessary the nearby pharmacy was contacted, and single-dose vials of opiates such as morphine 15 mg. or meperidine 100 mg. were obtained. Patients received an IM injection, were observed for side effects and pain relief, and left when in satisfactory condition.
One day early in 1996 investigators from the Department of Professional Licensing and the Drug Enforcement Agency arrived unexpectedly during clinic hours and asked for a "witnessed" urine specimen for drug testing, and for copies of patient charts. The investigators next began contacting many of Weitzel’s patients and asking about the care he had rendered. About six months later, the investigators returned, guns on hips, and obtained more patient charts; the doctor knew from patient reports that they were continuing to be questioned. Because of this he lost many patients from his practice.
When he asked, Dr. Weitzel was told he was being investigated because he was "a psychiatrist prescribing opiates".
The investigators seemed to suffer some consternation when the urine specimen was clean of all drugs. Dr. Weitzel has been subjected to over one hundred and twenty random urine drug screens, both before and after the overt investigation began; every one has been clean, but this did not satisfy the investigators. His trash at home was searched by the DEA (the agency has its own collection truck, which picks up the street-side cans of targeted individuals), his office staff was questioned, and his acquaintances were interrogated. All of the above is known through discovery documents obtained from the government.
An investigation was launched into Dr. Weitzel's Medicare billing practices at Davis Hospital, where he was associate medical director of the Geropsychiatric Unit. This probe proved unsuccessful; no violations were found, but while there a nurse told the DEA agents that there had been five deaths in the winter of 1995-1996. These she characterized as "questionable." This nurse had not even been associated with the Geropsychiatric Unit at the time, and repeated mere innuendo. ( For a quick look at the nature of Davis Hospital's treatment practices: Overview of Unit Care>> )
Nevertheless, a physician was found in Salt Lake City, Bradford Hare, who was willing to opine (after a very cursory "review" of the records) that the care rendered to those patients was not standard palliative care, end-of-life, hospice care, but rather was "active euthanasia". It should be noted that this physician held himself out as a "pain" doctor, and thus was in direct economic competition with Dr. Weitzel. Additionally, he provided most of his pain treatment in an outpatient clinic, and never dealt with dying patients.
In June of 1999 Davis County Attorney Melvin Wilson announced that his office was pursuing the case with an eye toward filing first degree murder charges. (Utah Code>>) Exhumations were held, but since two of the three exhumed at that time did not even have measurable amounts of morphine, and the other had levels commensurate with the opiate she received before her death, it was hoped and believed that prosecution of the doctor would be avoided. However, in September of 1999 Dr. Weitzel was arrested on five counts of first-degree murder that Wilson filed in state court, and had to post both a $100,000 surety bond and a $25,000 cash bond to be released.
Simultaneously the DEA sent a letter to Dr. Weitzel’s primary hospital telling them that Weitzel was "no longer registered." This was done with absolutely no hearing on the part of the Agency, violating the doctors’ right to due process. Of greatest impact it caused his hospital to (regretfully, they said) place him on leave from the medical staff, and he has been out of work ever since.
Weitzel liquidated all of his assets, triple-mortgaging his home, and went into substantial debt raising funds for a legal defense provided by the firm of Stirba and Hathaway. Out of work through the winter of 1999-2000, he did his best to assist his defense team. Top experts, with national and international reputation, were recruited to testify. Unfortunately, it was difficult to recruit local Utah physicians because the state prosecutors and DOPL regulators did a hatchet job, besmirching Weitzel’s reputation through pre-trial publicity leaks to the press, leaks that had to go completely unanswered by the defense. At one point before the trial was to start the prosecution even leaked the story that the doctor was suspected of bringing the "missing," undocumented opiates from his office to the hospital, apparently in the middle of the night, and injecting patients with them himself. (So much for the earlier theory, that he was using them…) When the judge asked the prosecutors what evidence they had to support this they of course had to admit that there was none, but the damage was done, with a hysterical press account the next day, right before trial began.
Additionally, a litigious family of a patient in Texas with whom Weitzel had been peripherally involved as a consultant on her psychiatric care, and who later died, began telling the local news outlets that "Dr. Weitzel must have killed" their mother, too. There was absolutely no evidence for this, but the local law enforcement and Texas Department of Public Safety of course had to investigate. This then allowed the Utah papers in many pre-trial articles to trumpet: "Dr. Weitzel is also being investigated in Texas in the death of 84 year old Laura Ware." This was less than helpful, right before trial. The investigation never lead to charges of any sort.
Trial on five counts of first degree murder began in early June of 2000. The prosecution’s case was roundly criticized for being poorly prepared and organized, and it was obvious that the attorneys for the state thoroughly misunderstood the significance of the medical care charted. They were eager to focus only on any out-of-context snippets which seemed to cast Dr. Weitzel in a bad light, ignoring the overall trend. They frequently resorted to character assassination, attempting to enter totally extraneous, non-medical testimony, only to have the judge disallow it.
During the trial the defense had to ask the judge to order the state to quit contacting and harassing its expert witnesses. (See Witness Tampering Memo>>) The defense submitted an affidavit from one physician who stated that she had felt harassed and intimidated by the state’s attorneys calling her at home, (See Affidavit>>) and another (local physician) told of being informed by the state that he "wouldn’t be too popular if he testified in the Weitzel trial". (To his credit he informed them that he planned to testify as to what he honestly believed, and that this trial was not a "popularity contest.")
The state made the argument that "Weitzel didn't diagnose the patients as terminal on admission, and in his psychiatric evaluation plan wrote: 'discharge in 2 to 3 weeks back to nursing home' ". This, as if patients in their 90's couldn't become terminal at any time, and as if the doctor had some kind of crystal ball, rather than the truth - that he was making an informed guess as to disposition.
The state also argued that "the patients weren't documented to have been in any pain, at admission or otherwise." This is patently untrue. The medical charts have had their type colored to alert readers to symptoms of agitation, necessitating psychotropic medication treatment, signs of impending terminal status, and evidence of pain or suffering. The charts are very colorful; at many points in trial prosecution witnesses were forced to admit that the patients had evidence of being in severe pain.
Unfortunately the state was able to procure the testimony of several physicians who would evidently say almost anything in a zeal to see Weitzel convicted. The claim that the patients were in no pain was repeated despite all evidence to the contrary. Bradford Hare implied that if morphine were dosed at a q3 hour interval rather than q4 hour, the blood level would rise inexorably, never telling the jury that it would actually quickly stabilize at a bit higher level. Dr. Perry Fine later testified to the court that much of this testimony was "medically irresponsible" and "unsupported by the evidence in the medical chart." A child psychiatrist was called to testify on geriatric psychiatric drug dosing. A geriatrician differed from all the other state experts, in calling all of the deaths due to "delirium". The state medical examiner called (only) one of the deaths morphine-induced homicide, but then admitted on cross-examination that any of a number of underlying medical conditions could have been the cause of that death; he stated this about all of the patients. It should be noted that these opiophobic, highly biased physicians were paid as much as $40,000 for their testimony in the course of the case.
During the trial one interesting thing happened. All parties arrived one day to find that the prosecution had learned that the judge in the case, a baseball fan and Little League coach, had played a game of catch with one of the jurors, Bill Gillette, during the previous day’s lunch break. The prosecution claimed that they were concerned that this might represent an impropriety, and that the defense might use it as grounds for a mistrial. A mistrial was the last thing the defense wanted, as the trial seemed to be going quite well. Of additional bewilderment to the defense was the prosecution shooting themselves again in the foot with the implied slur on the judge’s integrity. A hearing was held, and Dr. Weitzel was asked to give up any right to raise this as an appeal issue later, and did so. Only much later was it seen why the prosecution was so intent on keeping this juror. See Brief on Motion for New Trial>>
After almost four weeks of exceedingly disjointed and poorly presented testimony, the state rested their case. Courtroom observers believed that they had not proved anything, that all their assertions were countered on cross-examination, and that the defense could not help but win the case, as they now had the opportunity to present their evidence. They were wrong.
The defense called experts called including C. Stratton Hill, MD, oncologist and pain expert from the M.D. Anderson Hospital in Houston, Laurel Herbst, MD, Director of the San Diego Hospice, and an international authority on end-of-life care, Robert Rothfeder, MD, a local Utah physician and cause-of-death expert, Joe Cannon, MD, a family practitioner from Texas who had recently worked with Dr. Weitzel, and Bob Supenaw, Pharm.D., a professor of medical pharmacology. The defense experts clearly and succinctly demolished the state’s case. See press accounts>> They showed that the patients were in fact given quite reasonable psychiatric treatment on admission, that they suffered unexpected acute medical crises which would be expected to be terminal if not treated, that their families obviously agreed and requested that all interventions be stopped and palliative care given, and that they were then given appropriate end-of-life care. The experts pointed out the numerous instances of the patients being documented to be in pain or suffering, and the clear rationale for use of opiates to ease their passing. See relevant NY Times letter>> They pointed out that the physician was following the manifest wishes of the families in giving this care, as guided by the advance directives, and that the physician would have committed an assault had he intervened. The experts explained the principle of the "doctrine of double effect": even if opiate analgesics were to conceivably hasten the death of an already dying person, that the intent was to spare them pain, suffering, or indignity, and this intent justified use. See relevant journal article>> Finally, the pharmacologist proved conclusively, using computer modeling of all doses given, that the use of opiates and psychotropics had nothing to do with the patients’ deaths – that the time of administration and death did not correspond in any rational way.
One point often ignored in this case’s litigation has been that Dr. Weitzel never administered any of the opiates prescribed (despite the state’s unsupported assertion that he may have.) Nurses, as is usually the case, gave all medications. A Ph.D. nursing expert told the court that nurses had a duty to withhold medication if it was felt it might harm the patient, and indeed each nurse who had given opiates testified that "I never gave a fatal dose". There was further testimony that a physician has a right to rely on nursing staff to watch for side effects and to withhold any dose that might harm. Finally, it was pointed out that the nurses independently used prn doses of opiates for the patients when they perceived them to be in pain, and were free to hold doses if they felt they were contraindicated (and at times did so). See nurse's letter>>
Dr. Weitzel testified himself for two days of the defense. He vehemently denied any intention to harm the patients or hasten their deaths. He explained that his intention was to relieve the inarguable suffering that the patients were demonstrating. It seemed he had acquitted himself well, and had helped his case by going on the stand. Unfortunately he was not asked to tell the chronology of each case, to put each patient’s care into perspective, helping the jurors understand the patient’s medical course in a unified presentation of their individual history and course. This might have prevented the unexpected outcome.
At the end of trial the prosecution asked for and was granted inclusion of two "lesser included" offenses to present to the jury: manslaughter and negligent homicide. (Utah Code>>) The defense, believing it had won the trial, and not afraid to face the possibility of murder conviction, wanted to avoid these inclusions of other possible charges, and strenuously objected to them. They made the point that the doctor had been charged with murder, that the elements of these other charges had never been discussed as the case proceeded, and to present the jury with these options at the last minute allowed them an "easy out". This was a case in which the defendant was at the mercy of the state’s unlimited resources in prosecuting him for the very worst of crimes. It was quite conceivable that the jury, rather than deliberate responsibly, might compromise, in the belief that "if the state’s trying him for five counts of murder, he must be guilty of something."
After both sides summed up, the jury got the case at 4:30 PM on Monday, July 10. After a very complicated and extremely lengthy trial of over five weeks, the jury returned with a verdict that very evening, after only five hours out, some of that time having been consumed by dinner. The entire courtroom, even the prosecution, seemed stunned at the verdict: two counts of manslaughter – guilty; and three counts of (misdemeanor) negligent homicide – guilty. See press account>>
Dr. Weitzel was handcuffed and led away to jail. The jurors gave quite a few interviews, some of them very telling. The prosecution quickly shook off its initial incredulity at the win and began to complain that they should have got a murder conviction.
The juror who had played ball, Bill Gillette, told reporters that the prosecution had made an excellent case, and that he had been convinced "from the start" that Weitzel was guilty on all counts of murder. (He was the only juror, and in fact the only observer, who held that opinion of the prosecution; most felt that they were horribly inept in their presentation.) Other jurors said that they had planned to vote for acquittal, but faced with the Gillette's vociferous opposition, did in fact compromise. Another juror plaintively told the press, afterward, "I didn’t know he’d go to prison…" She apparently thought she was participating in some sort of civil malpractice case.
The local press reported that the verdict would have a chilling effect on Utah medical practices, and it has in fact affected patient care. See press account>> The state already is documented to have the worst record in the country for undertreating pain in nursing home patients. In Utah a physician who gives opiate analgesia to a patient who is dying now faces murder charges, if the patient dies.
After the trial was over, certain facts emerged casting Mr. Gillette’s role in doubt. It came to light that one of the prosecution’s most negative witnesses, a nurse with whom Dr. Weitzel had had an ongoing personality conflict and who tried to seriously hurt him at trial with tales of unrelated incidents, now worked as a school nurse at the same school where Gillette’s wife was a teacher; that they were in fact acquainted. There is no definite proof, but many have wondered how this nurse’s relationship with a juror’s wife might have unduly influenced him. The jury was prevented from hearing at least one of the nurse’s stories by the judge’s ruling that it was simply prejudicial, and had no bearing on the facts.
On August 15, 2000, after a month in jail, Dr. Weitzel finally got a break. A meeting of the "Utah Coalition to Improve End of Life Care" was held to discuss the case. Present at that meeting were several of the state’s prosecutors, some of the supporters of Weitzel, including his civil attorney, many interested physicians and allied health care workers, and Perry Fine, MD, a member of the Coalition. The prosecutors began "retrying" the case, attempting to convince the gathering that Weitzel was guilty and should really have been convicted of murder. But Dr. Fine rose and told those gathered that he had informed the prosecution before the case went to trial that Dr. Weitzel had committed no crime and at worst might be guilty of medical malpractice. (It turned out that the state’s star witness, anesthesiologist Bradford Hare, had told prosecutors that he wasn’t really all that expert at end-of-life care, and that they should approach Fine for chart review and support.) Comment>>
Fine told of how the prosecution had contacted him, paid him to review all of the medical records, and solicited his opinion. He said that in their meeting he had told the state lawyers that he did not believe there was any crime committed, that the care was within the local and national standard. He has testified that they initially tried to dissuade him, but when he was adamant they left, telling him to keep quiet, and that if the defense should ask, to avoid them.
Dr. Weitzel’s civil attorney of course took notes on this exchange and told the doctor's criminal defense attorney, Peter Stirba, of the evening’s events. See Brief on Motion for New Trial>>
This failure to disclose along with the information about juror Bill Gillette led to the defense filing a motion for a new trial. Although eventually this proved successful Dr. Weitzel was first sentenced to fifteen years in prison for his patient care. He spent six months and a day in prison before the motion was granted and he was released on bail.
Dr. Weitzel believed he had acted properly, ethically, and compassionately, in an attempt to spare his terminally ill patients pain as they died. He had acknowledged that the care was certainly not perfect, but asserted that it was given totally in good faith. Because of this he was apparently seen by the trial judge as having "shown no remorse" for his care or to the jury’s guilty verdict, and the judge cited this as a major factor in sending him to prison, where he was assessed to be eligible for parole in six years, at the earliest.
Fortunately the Motion for New Trial was heard by the trial judge and granted. See Hearing Testimony of Perry Fine, MD>> The irony of the state’s star witness telling the prosecution to solicit Dr. Fine’s testimony, characterizing him as a better expert, has not escaped many. The arrogance of the state’s lawyers in continuing this case after the preeminent expert advised against it has often been overlooked. The only motive the state has ascribed to Weitzel for wanting to murder his patients has been a poorly defined and never substantiated "arrogance". It seems to many that in fact it is the state’s attorneys who are arrogant. See press account>>
Dr. Weitzel was now out of prison and working for his exoneration, but he had been left destitute by the legal proceedings. He had spent his life savings and sold his home attempting to defend himself, and was now bankrupt. His attorney told him on his release that both the state and federal charges would almost certainly be dropped, but it appeared that the authorities had to much egg on their faces, and not only did the state seek to bring continued homicide charges, but the federal attorney began to push for a trial on their charges, those related to failure to document opiate wastage. Dr. Weitzel and members of his church initiated a Legal Defense Fund to help obtain professional legal counsel, for the previous attorney declined to work further on the case; his wife was dying of cancer.
The judge issued a twenty-three page ruling on granting a new trial, and in it he called the state’s actions in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence "manifestly unethical". See Judge Kay's Opinion and Ruling>> According to the testimony of Dr. Fine, they also tried to conceal the evidence from the defense. This is obstruction of justice. Furthermore, since the state’s attorneys denied having done this in the face of Dr. Fine’s statement that they indeed did, they appear to many to be guilty of perjury. Dr. Weitzel has been victimized by these proceedings, and the state’s continuing persecution and characterization of his patients as victims is cynical, vicious, and wrong.
The state has made victims of the patients’ family members. To be told by the state that your elder relative died of murder rather than naturally brings enormous grief, anger and stress. To saddle the relatives with this belief on the flimsiest of highly disputed evidence is unethical, immoral, and wrong.
Nevertheless the Davis County Attorney vowed to reprosecute the case, and on charges of first degree murder again. To many it looked as if the heat was on the County Attorney for his mishandling of and indeed prosecutorial misconduct in the case. It is incontrovertible that Weitzel faced the first murder trial because the state's lawyers wanted to keep the spotlight on the doctor rather than face responsibility for having pursued a misguided and unnecessary trial. It is understood that County Attorney Wilson did not initiate the investigation, and in fact may have been led by the nose into an untenable case by other agencies who had nothing to lose in the affair, but his unwillingness to face the almost universal condemnation of the first trial’s outcome is worrisome. Politics should not be a factor in such an important case, one important for the doctor, but even more important for the responsible medical practice of patient care.
The state's attempt to retry the physician on charges of first degree murder was obviously without merit, as he was clearly acquitted of those charges at the first trial. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is the rule here, bolstered by case law and codified by statute. The legal wrangling over this non-issue represented another example of waste of resources by a group of vigilante lawyers bent on persecution, not justice. The state quite effectively caused the waste of Dr. Weitzel's last legal defense resources on this further bad faith legal action. See legal memo vs. state's attempt>>
Dr. Weitzel met with Utah and U.S. doctors after his release, answering their questions and documenting his answers with the medical records and trial testimony. He received the support of many local physicians and scores of national experts and organizations. (See list>>) Because of the intervention of these concerned physicians, and not a few lay citizens, the negative press substantially ended, and the deeper issues of end-of-life care and the appalling under-treatment of pain were being examined. It was clear to many now that the state's case was bankrupt. The willingness of the doctor to have the records open to the world, via the Internet, was clear evidence of his faith that the truth of his innocence was readily apparent.
On June 28, 2001, one day before the double jeopardy issue was to be argued, the state lawyers faxed Walter Bugden (Dr. Weitzel's new attorney, hired at a cost of $15,000, money donated and loaned to the legal defense fund and then used to defend him from reprosecution for murder) and announced that they were withdrawing their opposition to a plea of double jeopardy. They cited alleged "research" they'd done "with members of the jury" which revealed "no one having voted for a murder conviction." This of course was entirely irrelevant, legally; the previous jury vote was in no way controlling. The constitution, case law, and Utah statute prohibited reprosecution, and the state lawyers knew this all along. In granting the plea of double jeopardy the trial judge specifically cited the constitutional and statutory law in his ruling. See press account>> Unfortunately for Dr. Weitzel, the necessity of defeating the state lawyers bad faith move to reprosecute the case on first-degree murder led to his complete indigency, again; all funds collected by his Legal Defense fund were spent on arguing the issue.
After the above the state took the highly unusual step of asking the original trial judge in the case to step down: recuse himself, claiming that he was biased against them. Given that this is the judge who sentenced the doctor to up to 15 years in prison, it seemed disingenuous at most, and ridiculous to the legal community. (See legal memo vs: state's attempt>>) The issue was thought to be put to rest June 15th, with the presiding district judge ruling that there was no bias, and scolding the prosecutors for casting such aspersions. See Memorandum Decision>> See press account>>
In July 2001 the state lawyers, Wilson, Bowman, Barlow, and Major, all four became targets of an ethics violation investigation by the State Bar. Because the trial judge in vacating the previous trial results ruled that the state acted illegally and in a manifestly unethical manner, there was no doubt that these miscreants would shortly take a dose of their own medicine. The Bar couldn't afford to ignore these violations in the face of public scrutiny. See first press account of Bar investigation>> See second account>> This is especially true after the public denunciations of the government lawyers by Judge Kay and Judge West (see below).
A hearing was held on Thursday, August 9, 2001, at which it was hoped that a trial date might be set. The state that day announced that they planned to file an extraordinary writ asking that the Utah Court of Appeals grant another request that Judge Kay be recused; this was eventually filed on September 5. The best legal guess appears to be that they hoped by this act to further delay trial, but the Court rightly refused to grant a stay pending action on the writ: the first judge to examine the issue was quite clear in his denunciation of the prosecution's attempt at derailment and judge-shopping. Go to press account>>
September 6, 2001, a hearing was held to argue the merits of appointing Walter Bugden as Dr. Weitzel's attorney for any further trial of the "homicide" cases. (See brief in support>>) Although it seemed clearly equitable to give Dr. Weitzel the private counsel he had been working with for some time, because the judge could find no "compelling" reason to grant the request, the motion was denied. This puts the lie to the state's assertions that the judge was biased against them. It does beg the question as to what circumstances would be compelling enough to have the state supply private defense counsel for a retrial, after bankrupting the defendant in a state-corrupted first trial.
On the issue of the judge's fairness, the state continued to wrangle. Rather than the interlocutory appeal they promised after Judge West emphatically turned down their earlier attempt at judge-shopping, they went to the Court of Appeals with not only an extraordinary writ Motion to Recuse, but a request for a stay of any proceedings under Judge Kay. The stay was denied, so the September 6 hearing went ahead and the doctor lost his attorney; he would now be represented by the public defender. A September 17 hearing was held at the Utah Court of Appeals to argue the merits of their recusal writ. (See brief arguing against recusal>>) The justices took the matter under advisement, and on Thursday September 20 returned a ruling that Judge West should reconsider the matter using an "appearance of bias" standard rather than actual bias. (See press account>>) This ruling allows any party to a case to make completely unsubstantiated allegations of bias, then claim "the appearance of bias"; now no judge can feel safe against this sort of manipulation.
Judge West sent a questionaire to Judge Kay, asking for his response to the state's allegations. See press account>> On October 26, 2001, Judge Kay released an answer to the prosecution's false and malicious accusations of bias. See Affidavit of Judge Kay>> See press account>> See second account>> His shining of light on the actual facts regarding what happened in court cleared up at least some of the shadow cast by the prosecution's groundless fictions and the negative publicity they have sought. One would have hoped the case could now go forward to justice, yet Mr. Wilson continued in the same vein, filing a response that continued to complain that the judge was against him. See press account>>
Finally, on November 16, Judge West unexpectedly ruled that Judge Kay be recused. He did this while severely rebuking the government lawyers for their misconduct, but nevertheless he did it. See decision>> See press account>> Press account>> Judge Rodney Page was appointed in his stead.
Since then the state bar president has complained publicly of the poor manner in which an honorable and highly skilled judge has been so unfairly maligned. See press account>> On January 4, 2002, a letter from Susanne Gustin, President of the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, castigating Paul Cassell, University of Utah law professor then under consideration to become a federal judge. See letter>> On January 20, 2002, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff had a letter published in the same forum taking the outrageous step of giving his political support to Cassell, while at the same time commenting negatively against Dr. Weitzel during an ongoing criminal case which his office has instituted and supported. See letter>> Go to reply from Dr. Frank Day>> Go to further reply from the Rev. Tom Goldsmith>>
The loss of Mr. Bugden as attorney hurt; Dr. Weitzel now faced educating his third set of attorneys on the medical charts. For the state to be able to grind a citizen into the ground in an unfair trial in which they cheated, then continue with these bad faith machinations to further weaken his ability to defend himself, is simply inexcusable. It is frightening that this can happen.
However, the team assisting Dr. Weitzel learned that on September 11, 2001, an anonymous donor had pledged $100,000 to the legal defense of the case. The funds were offered to the Davis County Attorney's office to be used for a private lawyer for the doctor, thus saving the county considerable money that would otherwise be spent for a public defender. Inexplicably, the county refused the money. One can only think that they would do nothing that might help Dr. Weitzel's situation, even if it is the fair thing to do and even if it cost the Davis County taxpayers even more money.
The funds were donated to the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. That organization hired Mr. Bugden to assist Mr. Glen Cella, the public defender appointed for Dr. Weitzel.
On Wednesday, December 18, 2001, a first hearing was held before Judge Rodney Page, the replacement for Judge Kay. A motion for reduction of bail was denied.
On Sunday, March 3, 2002, CBS "60 Minutes" aired a piece on the case which really clarified the issues of most importance. The transcript of this in-depth program's broadcast is available, as is a QuickTime video clip, compressed to 2 megabytes for easier download. For the video clip, click: HERE. For the transcript, click: HERE.
March 12 another hearing was held in Judge Page's court, and a trial date was set for August 5, 2002. The defense had requested a date in June, but the state replied that they "wouldn't be ready that quickly" - this after having already tried the case once (Dr. Weitzel's new defense is new to the case) and having been persecuting the doctor for over three years. It also became apparent that the state lawyers also were trying to avoid paying for costs of lead counsel Glen Cella and/or expert witnesses, this despite having bankrupted the doctor in the corrupt and unfair first trial, back in 2000. Just how venal and unfair these state lawyers can be never ceases to amaze.
On the other hand, County Attorney Melvin Wilson now faced two challengers in this year's race for county attorney; previously he had run unopposed. See press account>> There was also a grassroots movement afoot by Davis County voters to force an end to the prosecution, because of the senseless waste of county tax dollars it represented. On Saturday, April 13th, Wilson narrowly survived being thrown out of office by his party's leadership at the Davis County GOP convention, winning only 42% of the vote against Russell Cline's 58%. See press account>>
Because the judge set an August trial date, trial was put off even further, for Perry Fine was out of town the month of August. Trial was rescheduled for October 30, 2002, more than three years after Dr. Weitzel's arrest. He had been unable to work for all of this time.
On Tuesday May 28 a hearing was held before Judge Page on the indigency issue, again. Although this had previously been decided by both Judge Kay and Judge Page, the state re-raised it, claiming that because of the donation that hired Mr. Bugden, they should not be "burdened" by defense costs for expert witnesses, investigators, and ancillary expenses. They also claimed that Mr. Bugden should go it alone, losing Public Defender Glen Cella as the lead counsel in the case. Both of these were denied, and the judge ordered that the state pay for reasonable costs, and that Cella remain. See press account>>
On Friday June 21, 2002, the Ogden Standard Examiner printed an article describing how the state withheld more evidence. See press account>> It became clear that the state submitted misleading "copies" of the medical chart to the defense, claiming that they were missing the pages to which three admission photographs of the patients were attached. See commentary>> The state lawyers wanted to claim that the photographs they had previously admitted into evidence, taken when the patients were quite healthy, were the best depiction of their medical condition. See the evidence>>
A hearing on June 21, 2002, in Judge Page's Farmington courtroom resulted in the defense change of venue request being denied. Decisions on the state's request to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial testimony were not made, but deferred until later. The judge ruled for the admission of the old photographs of the patients, the ones shown by the state at the first trial, but also would allow the recently discovered ones. See press account>>
On August 14, 2002 Dr. Weitzel filed a federal lawsuit against the perpetrators of this gross injustice. That lawsuit has now been revised, with further injustices incorporated. See lawsuit>> See press account>>
In late October of 2002 the Utah Medical Association's House of Delegates voted unanimously to endorse a resolution condemning the criminalization of medicine that this case represents. See press account>>
The state offered to "plea bargain" the case down to the misdemeanor level, but Dr. Weitzel refused, telling the state lawyers he'd rather meet them in court. See press account>>
After a second trial, the Utah 2nd District Court jury found Dr. Weitzel "NOT GUILTY" on all counts. (See the home page for press accounts, under "New Trial" or click here.)
Aug 14, 2004, Dr. Weitzel re-filed suit against all of the corrupt and illegal state lawyers and bureaucrats who have deprived him of any semblance of due process in the unfair and vile vendetta they have waged. t is hoped that this will finally convince the electorate of the bad faith and gross incompetence of their public officials, and those officials will be swept from office. See the lawsuit>>
Although Dr. Weitzel and representatives of the state of Utah previously signed an agreement whereby the state would drop all of its harassment tactics, and leave the doctor's license in the status of being temporarily suspended solely due to failure to pay licensure fees (which Dr. Weitzel could not afford, having been bankrupted by the unfair prosecution) DOPL bureaucrats have reneged on this contract, and are claiming a suspension due to "unprofessional conduct." Dr. Weitzel went back to court yet again, asking for a declarative judgment forcing this rogue agency to honor its obligations, and it was granted.
If you wish to contact Dr. Weitzel, he can be e-mailed at raw1md*weitzelcharts.com. He would be happy to answer questions, send more information, and/or speak to physician and/or community groups.
* = @