Photographic evidence in the trial of Dr

Photographic evidence in the trial of Dr. Weitzel

During the first trial of Dr. Robert Weitzel, the state lawyers gave the defense, as part of legal “discovery,” what they claimed was a complete set of the patient medical records. Five sets were delivered, one for each patient. The state represented that these were each the entire medical chart.

As part of the usual hospital admission process an identification Polaroid photograph had been taken of each patient, and this was then placed in the chart along with a Photographic Consent Form. For each of the three charts where the photograph still existed, the state made up and inserted a new page that falsely stated that the Photographic Consent Form (and thus the photograph) was “missing”. In the other two charts (where the photographs seem long gone - probably lost by the hospital) the original consent form was handed over per the Rules of Procedure.

Because the state had thus misled the defense, hiding the real nature of the patients' appearances, they were able to enter into evidence old photographs of the patients (some taken literally years before admission) that seriously misrepresented their physical condition on admission to the hospital.

Dr. Weitzel, a psychiatrist, is fully aware of the confidential nature of most medical charts, and regrets that the state lawyers chose to make these public in a trial that they were warned was without merit. He publishes them on the Internet only for purposes of truth, fairness, and justice.

In preparing for a second trial, after the first was ruled null and void due to prosecutorial misconduct (failing to reveal exculpatory and impeaching evidence: Perry Fine, MD), the new lawyers for Dr. Weitzel subpoenaed the medical charts directly from the hospital. The records had contained the admission photographs all along in each and every case where the state had represented them as “missing.” These photographs were part of the "complete" medical charts that the state lawyers had supposedly admitted into evidence, in a case they instigated and continued, and belonged in evidence at the first trial.

In a story printed in the June 21, 2002 Ogden Standard Examiner, state lawyer Major claimed that the photographs were: “…included in the medical records obtained by his office and that Weitzel's attorneys in his first trial were aware of them.” This is not true. Weitzel's previous attorneys were not aware of them at all; if they had known of these photographs they certainly would have had them admitted to refute the state’s contention that the patients were “physically healthy”. They were not aware of them because the state lawyers hid them.

The same lawyer is quoted: “…he and Peter Stirba, Dr. Weitzel's attorney during the first trial, went through the records along with a member of the hospital staff. The hospital employee signed an affidavit stating that everything the court had was also in the original files of the patients.”

Of course this statement does not speak to whether the court had the entire chart, just that everything the court had was in the chart.

Additionally, Davis County Attorney Wilson has complained that he finds the revelation of the photographs to be “offensive”. It seems rather more offensive for a public official to illegally and unethically hide evidence. Finally, the state lawyers by their account entered the “complete” charts into the public record at the first trial; this is undisputed. To now complain that the photographs are finally being unearthed is disingenuous, to say the least.

In court on June 21, 2002, before Judge Rodney Page, Charlene Barlow, an assistant attorney general from the Utah Division of Professional Licensing, told the Judge that at the first trial these photographs were admitted into evidence, and that the previous attorneys for Dr. Weitzel knew of them. This is entirely false.

Mr. Major’s misrepresentations and obfuscations to the press are understandable, for he can always claim that he was misquoted. Miss Barlow’s direct lies to the judge are difficult to understand, for as an officer of the court, she puts herself at risk of disbarment and even imprisonment. Obstruction of justice and perjury are crimes.

Despite being informed of these misrepresentations, illegal acts, and lies, the local press has done nothing to inform the public of what happened. Instead they have concentrated more on the propriety of publishing medical records, records that have already been put into evidence by the state lawyers at the first trial.

Here is the Evidence:

1. Ennis Alldredge

This page was given to the defense by the state lawyers:

Note: Bates-stamped by the state. This is the method the state used to keep track of documents, and identifies those produced per discovery at first trial.

This is what was obtained directly from the Ennis Alldredge hospital chart, on the new subpoena:

Scanned admission photograph of Ennis Alldredge, directly from the chart:

Shown by the state as representative of Ennis Alldredge's appearance:

Testimony at trial was that this was taken four years before admission to the hospital.

Ennis Alldredge, all pages and photos together:

2. Judith Larsen

This is the page given to the defense by the state lawyers:

Bates stamped.

This is what was obtained directly from Judith Larsen's hospital chart, on new subpoena:

Scanned admission photograph of Judith Larsen:

Shown by the state as representative of Judith Larsen's appearance:

This photograph was taken eight years before admission, per trial testimony.

Judith Larsen, all pages and photos together:

3. Lydia Smith

This is the page given to the defense by the state lawyers:

Bates-stamped, undeniably produced by the state at the first trial.

This is what was obtained directly from the hospital, on new subpoena, for Lydia Smith:

Lydia Smith admission photograph, scanned directly from the chart, which is filed at Davis Hospital:

Here is the Lydia Smith photograph the state showed to the jury at trial:

At trial this was conceeded to be six to seven years old.

Lydia Smith, with all pages and photos together:

4. Ellen Anderson (Note: No original admission photograph extant.)

This is the page given to the defense by the state lawyers:

Note the Bates stamping, identifying this as state-discovery produced.

Ellen Anderson - This is what was obtained directly from the hospital, on new subpoena:

Note: no Bates stamp. For this patient, there was no photograph left in the chart, and thus no need for the state to hide the evidence.

Here is the photograph of Ellen Anderson that was shown to the jury by the state lawyers, with the patient obviously much earlier in life, and in much better health:

It is unknown when this was taken, but it appears to be much younger than age 91.

Ellen Anderson, all pages and the photograph together:

5. Mary Crane (Note: No original admission photograph extant.)

This is the page given to the defense by the state lawyers:

Note: Bates-stamped by the state.

Mary Crane - This is what was obtained directly from the hospital, on new subpoena:

Note: no Bates stamp. Once again, for this patient, there was no photograph left in the chart, so there was no need for the state to hide the evidence.

Here is the photograph of Mary Crane that was shown to the jury by the state lawyers, with the patient obviously much earlier in life, and in much better health:

This is reportedly from not long before the patient's death. Authentification will be attempted.

Mary Crane, all pages and the photo together:

From a cursory inspection it is clear that the state lawyers completely misrepresented the physical status of these patients on admission with the years-old photographs.

Once again the state is shown to have unethically, willfully, and illegally withheld evidence. The refusal by local media to publicize this behavior is mind-boggling. Focus on the “impropriety” of releasing the actual admission photographs which the state already introduced into evidence (the public record) at the first trial is completely beside the point. The medical charts in toto were ordered to be admitted. The state lawyers hid the photographic evidence they didn’t want in. Is this obstruction of justice, or what?

<<Back to Home Page

<<Back to Legal History