Ogden Standard Examiner      News
            Weitzel gets same judge 
            Prosecutors complained about Judge Thomas Kay 
            Sat, June 16, 2001 00:00:00 
            By TIM GURRISTER
            Standard-Examiner staff
            OGDEN -- The judge handling the Robert Weitzel murder trial will be 
            returned to the case, despite complaints from prosecutors.
            Ogden Judge W. Brent West, the presiding judge of the 2nd District 
            Court, has ruled Davis County attorneys have failed to show any bias 
            on the part of Farmington 2nd District Judge Thomas Kay in the 
            handling of the trial.
            In his decision released Friday, West several times called legally 
            insufficient the prosecutors' motion seeking to remove Kay from 
            hearing Weitzel's second trial on charges of murder in the deaths of 
            five geriatric patients under his care. West ordered the case 
            returned to Kay.
            Davis County Attorney Mel Wilson and his trial deputy, Steve Major, 
            complained in their motion filed in April that Kay went too far in 
            limiting some evidence at Weitzel's trial last July. They also claim 
            the judge made comments offensive to families of the alleged victims 
            as well as prejudicial remarks during the trial.
            It's a disappointment, Major said. We thought there were really good 
            grounds for granting the motion.
            A decision on an appeal will come after reading the full decision, 
            he said, which he hadn't seen yet.
            The plaintiff alleges that a series of specific rulings, made during 
            the trial of this case, demonstrate bias and prejudice on behalf of 
            Judge Kay, West wrote in his 8-page decision. However, after having 
            read the transcripts of each particular ruling in its complete 
            context, this court finds that the record simply shows that Judge 
            Kay ruled on the admissibility of the evidence as he understood the 
            law and rules of evidence.
            West noted that if a judge can be disqualified for bias following a 
            comment or ruling during court proceedings there is no limit to 
            disqualification motions and there would be a return to "judge 
            shopping.' 
            Charged with five counts of murder, Weitzel, 45, was found guilty by 
            jurors of two lesser counts of manslaughter and three counts of 
            negligent homicide. The charges came in connection with the morphine 
            deaths of five elderly patients who died under Weitzel's care within 
            a 16-day span beginning in late December 1995.
            Weitzel was awarded a new trial Jan. 9 by Kay and released from 
            prison after the judge agreed with a defense motion that the guilty 
            verdict was undermined after it was learned prosecutors didn't 
            disclose an opinion to the defense from an end-of-life care expert 
            witness that was contrary to their theory.
            Major said he and others in the county attorney's office have talked 
            to a lot of prosecutors, even the old-timers and no one could recall 
            a prosecutor asking for a judge's recusal from a case. Defense 
            attorneys do it all the time, he said.
            This is unheard of, he said, so the office will have to consider its 
            next step carefully.
            One final comment needs to be made in regards to the plaintiff's 
            position that Judge Kay gave no credence to the plaintiff's 
            witnesses during the defendant's motion for a new trial, West wrote 
            in a concluding remark that seemed to scold the prosecutors.
            Since deciding a witness' credibility goes right to the heart of 
            what trial court judges do, to argue that Kay was somehow obligated 
            to lean toward the plaintiff's witnesses is unsound legal reasoning, 
            unfounded in the law, and inappropriate.
      Copyright ©2001, Ogden Publishing Corporation 

            <<Back to Home Page