Jul 25, 2008

Judge upholds key evidence in Ayres trial

Defense to appeal, claims investigation violated patients' privacy

By Will Oremus / Daily News Staff Writer

A defense motion to suppress key evidence in the molestation trial of San Mateo child psychiatrist William Ayres was denied Thursday by San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Norman Gatzert.

In a 28-page order, Gatzert rejected defense attorney Doron Weinberg's claim that the search warrants used to seize Ayres' files were illegal. Weinberg had argued they violated psychotherapist/patient privilege and the patients' Fourth Amendment rights.

Weinberg said he plans to appeal the decision.

The validity of the evidence obtained through the search warrants has emerged as the crux of the case against the once-esteemed, 76-year-old psychiatrist. He's accused of sexually molesting dozens of teenage male patients during therapy sessions over a period of decades.

The original claims of molestation brought by the alleged victims were all outside of the statute of limitations for prosecution. Only by seizing and combing the doctor's more recent files did investigators find seven people claiming to be molested more recently than 1988.

If the seven people found through the files can't testify, the government's case is shot.

That was part of the logic that Gatzert used to uphold the search warrants' validity. He referenced a past court case in which similar search warrants were thrown out partly because the evidence they turned up wasn't crucial to the prosecution's case.

In contrast, "There is no doubt that in this case, the government had a compelling need for disclosure of the records," Gatzert wrote. He agreed with prosecutors that there was "no less intrusive means available for identifying the current victims."

Even if the warrants violated psychotherapist/client privilege, Gatzert continued, suppressing the witnesses would not be justified because their Fourth Amendment rights weren't violated. Rather, Ayres would have had to claim the privilege back in 2006, before the records were searched.

Prosecutor Melissa McKowan said after the hearing Thursday that she was "thrilled" with the ruling.

"I believe this was their most serious challenge to our case," she said. "Now that it's over, I'm confident we will proceed to trial."

McKowan added, "I am so happy that finally these victims are going to get their chance to tell the world what happened to them."

However, Weinberg said Thursday afternoon that he will appeal Gatzert's decision. He noted that an appeals court has already once told the San Mateo County Superior Court that it needed to more fully address the question of patients' privacy.

In the latest ruling, Weinberg said the court "again failed to address the central questions."

"There was absolutely no excuse for hundreds and hundreds of records to be seized in what was essentially a fishing expedition" for evidence against Ayres, he said, adding that the information it produced is "unreliable."

He agreed with McKowan that the case turns on this point.
"I think it's pretty clear to everybody that if the search warrant was invalid, the case was seriously crippled and probably entirely invalidated," he said.

At Thursday's hearing, a pretrial conference was scheduled for October, and the jury trial was pushed to January. It's not yet clear how the defense appeal might affect that timetable.



E-mail Will Oremus at woremus@dailynewsgroup.com.