PEOPLE V. GIONIS 9 Cal. 4th 1196 (1995) CASE BRIEF

PEOPLE V. GIONIS

9 Cal. 4th 1196 (1995)

NATURE OF THE CASE: P appealed an order that reversed Gionis's (D) conviction for conspiracy to commit an assault, conspiracy to commit a trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with a firearm.

FACTS: D, a doctor, and Aissa Marie Wayne, daughter of the late movie actor John Wayne, were married in 1986. In February 1987, D and Wayne had a daughter named Anastasia. D twice threatened to kill Wayne if she got in the way of his relationship with Anastasia. He also warned Wayne that if she left him he would flee to Greece with Anastasia and Wayne would never see her daughter again. Wayne left defendant in June 1987, taking Anastasia with her. A bitter custody dispute ensued. Foss was an employee of D at his clinics was told by D he could hire people to physically harm Wayne if she ever 'messed with him.' D told Foss and a coworker to resign from his clinics after they went to watch Wayne play tennis in Corona del Mar. John Lueck, an attorney who referred clients to D for medical evaluations received a telephone call from D asking him to come to D's home. D was in tears. He said he had just been served with divorce papers, and he needed somebody to talk to because he was upset. Lueck agreed to meet D after making it clear that he would not be willing to have any involvement as a lawyer. Lueck refused to represent D because he knew both D and Wayne. Lueck, speaking as D's friend, said he thought a change of venue might be appropriate, but did not offer to do it. Lueck also told D to quickly retain a good attorney. D showed Lueck some holes in a wall, as well as a closet door off its track in the bedroom. D said that the altercation which resulted in the holes in the wall was nothing relative to what he was capable of doing. D also told Lueck that Wayne 'had no idea how easy it would be for him to pay somebody to really take care of her.' D said that if he were to do something, he 'would wait until an opportune time so that suspicion wouldn't be directed towards him.' D also told Lueck he had friends, family and money in Greece available to him in the event he needed to leave the country. Lueck did not immediately contact the police about D's statements because at the time he believed they were simply expressions of anger. D showed up at Lueck's office, upset over the case. D pleaded with Lueck to go to court on an ex parte basis. Lueck agreed, but when he went to court, an irate judge told him that arrangements had already been made. The judge then accused Lueck of being part of an effort to harass Wayne. Lueck was paid $ 750 for the court appearance. Wayne began a romantic relationship with Roger Luby. Wayne and Luby were attacked at their home. They struck Luby and threatened to kill him if he yelled or screamed. After handcuffing Luby's hands and ankles, they repeatedly smashed Luby's face into the concrete floor, warning him not to move or scream. They severed Luby's right Achilles tendon with a knife, and attempted to do the same to the left tendon. A gun was held to Wayne's head and she was forced to the ground. Her hands and feet were handcuffed and her face slammed into the concrete floor twice. Wayne felt her head split open and blood stream down her face. The assailants left and Wayne and Luby were taken to a hospital for medical treatment. Gal, the private investigator who hired the thugs, Hintergardt (thug), Bouey (thug) and D were arrested. Telephone records showed that more than 1,000 telephone calls were made between numbers connected to Gal and D (and calls between telephones connected to Gal and Hintergardt and Hintergardt and Bouey). A flurry of calls between the numbers for Gal and D occurred on October 3, 1988, just before and after the attack on Wayne and Luby. Several calls were placed between Hintergardt and Gal on that date as well. Bank records showed that D paid a considerable amount of money to Gal during the period of the surveillance. By far the largest payment, $ 40,000, was paid within the two weeks preceding the attacks. D was found guilty and appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed finding that D was prejudiced by a combination of the trial court's erroneous admission of D's statements to John Lueck in violation of the attorney-client privilege. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner