Act II: Don't Kiss and Tell...Else & Professional Misconduct

In recent past history, the Dodge County Sheriff Department has been plagued by self-inflicted credibility damage caused by former Sheriff Jim Trihey and former Investigator Jeremy Gunderson…both had a hand in abuse of power through sex. During 2009 Mr. Gunderson was accused, and subsequently admitted, he was guilty of sexual misconduct with a female drug informant. The informant leveled an accusation that Officer Gunderson starting demanding sexual favors from her after he did not arrest her on a drug bust but instead recruited her to be his confidential informant. Gunderson admitted to the activity in August 2009 after having several recorded phone conversations where he is caught admitting to the sexual indiscretion. In 2010 former Sheriff Jim Trihey ran into a sexual mud hole himself when an employee leveled a charge of sexual harassment and misconduct against him. The subordinate eventually gave in to Trihey’s persistent advances and allowed him to act out his desires. After the employee attempted to end the exploit, Trihey continued to pursue the endeavor prompting the employee to officially file a complaint against the Sheriff. The two individuals who were the object of law enforcement lust had their cases settled and both aggressive law enforcement officials were never brought up on charges. 

Things became even more intriguing when Outer Boundary Magazine received a voice message from former Dodge County Deputy Jeremy Gunderson on March 22, 2014 warning Outer Boundary Magazine "there is current legal lawsuits pending against people on hear-say stuff over hear so just hoping there is not a problem that hopefully will not involve the publication and your newspaper article type thing...um, I hope everything is researched and proof read because if you look on line right now you will see there is an active federal lawsuit pending with some individual that have used propaganda...causing a legal situation already." Outer Boundary Magazine returned Mr. Gunderson's phone call and in further discussion it was relayed to "not to touch the subject because Rose and ReMine are lawyered up." 

Lindsay Louise Van Tassel experienced first hand how a rancid action by the Dodge County legal system can impact a life after she was sentenced to 48 months in prison by a jury on the advice of prosecutor Gary ReMine, who mislead the jury into sentencing her to the four year term. Van Tassel lost control of her car on an icy road when she slid through an intersection after trying to stop, the vehicle rolled and went into a ditch ejecting both Van Tassel and her passenger Aaron Waters (who died from the incident). After the conviction the case went before the Minnesota Court of Appeals where the sentence was reversed because there was not enough evidence to prove any criminal action took place. In fact, the appeals court went further and publicly admonished Mr. ReMine stating “Prosecutors are considered ministers of justice who safeguard the defendant’s rights as well as enforce the public’s rights. In this case, the prosecutor crossed the line between legitimate means and improper methods.” The court elaborated further by adding “He (ReMine) twisted the stipulation to imply that Van Tassel “killed” Waters and he improperly altered the jurors’ understanding of the charges against Van Tassel and their understanding of the underlying evidence.” 

That, however, was not the only rebut against ReMine’s tactics from the Court of Appeals. In March of 2000 involving case K6-98-78 the appeals court reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial because of many issues that happened during the original trial including prosecutorial misconduct on the part of ReMine. In it's ruling the court stated "the prosecutor committed numerous instances of misconduct during his closing argument. We agree." These instances included improper use of Spriegl evidence, injecting personal opinions on credibility, disparaging the defense, inflaming juror passions, and improperly making statements to urge the jury to send a message with a conviction. The court stated "we hold that the misconduct, combined with other trial errors, denied Duncan a fair trial.", "The prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing argument., " This improper use of Duncan's prior convictions constituted serious misconduct." and "A prosecutor's duty is not to seek a conviction at any price but, rather, is to act as a minister of justice.”