Daniel Gukeisen, Ex-Attorney Who Fatally Stabbed ASU Student, Sentenced to Five Years in the Joint

Categories: Judge and Jury
gukeisan.jpg
Daniel Gukeisen
Daniel Gukeisen, a former attorney convicted of fatally stabbing Arizona State University student Garrett Hohn, was sentenced to five years in prison this morning after he was found guilty of manslaughter last month.

He actually showed up for court this time.

When the verdict was read last month, Gukeisen wasn't present. Apparently anticipating a guilty verdict, he skipped court. He turned himself in later that day outside of the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix.

When Gukeisen skipped his court appearance, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said he would push for an enhanced sentence.

We asked Montgomery's spokesman, Jerry Cobb, if his office was satisfied with the five-year prison sentence.

"Short answer: yes," Cobb says. "Skipping court is never, ever, a good thing, but he turned himself in. It's not like we needed to search for him."

Gukeisen faced the possibility of 10 1/2 years in prison. He also could have been sentenced to probation. Because Gukeisen didn't show up for court, Cobb says it was easier for prosecutors to argue for a prison sentence as opposed to probation.

Hohn was killed on September 6, 2008, as he was walking with a friend past Gukeisen's Tempe townhouse.

Hohn and Gukeisen began arguing -- a disagreement that ended when Gukeisen stabbed the college senior repeatedly.

Hohn was pronounced dead at a Valley hospital less than an hour later.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

Another interesting development. After throwing his brother under the bus in the manslaughter case, Gukeisen has now thrown his attorney (a former judge and respected criminal defense lawyer) under the bus in the aggravated assault/kidnapping case. He has filed a request for post conviction release alleging "ineffective assistance of counsel." Imagine that, once again  someone other than himself is the cause of Gukeisen's problems. Very ironic that Cocobear believe that Markcstaben should have know what was going on when Gukeisen - a lawyer and former prosecutor - somehow didn't understand what was going on when he entered his guilty plea. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault.

Markcstaben
Markcstaben

 This guy was used as my defense attorney in South Dakota in 2005. He lied to me and told me I would get 25 years if I went to trial. I plead guilty and got the maximum 5 years for possession of Marijuana seeds. It seemed to me that the the Judge Janine Kerns had a vendetta against both of us. My perception is that this guy was an idiot who made some powerful enemies a long time ago. I hope the whole truth about this guy comes out so I can figure out who put us together so I would take an un-justified fall.

anonymous
anonymous

FYI: I worked for the Gukeisen firm and was close to both Kim and Dan-- and no, Anti-Voice, they did not have any children prior. They were married July 2008 and they only (now) have one daughter who is about 2 years old.

Just thought I would help sustain your concise argument with a fact. 

No judgement. 

Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

Cocobear - yes, there is a bigdifference between "A knife" and "THE knife" in the contextof this case, and yes, I have reviewed both the audio and video of Gukeisen'sinterview many times, in real time and slowed down, and yes, Gukeisen did say"so you really found THE knife."  Your argument that he said"A knife" won't persuade anyone who has listened to the actualrecording - just as it didn't persuade the jury, who had the recording tolisten to.

 

I'm not clear now - areyou now suggesting that Gukeisen didn't stab Garrett? What happenedto self-defense? Who stabbed Garrett then - brother Michael?  Or wasn'tGarrett stabbed at all?  Maybe it was all a conspiracy of the Tempe PD toset Gukeisen up.  You Gukeisen supporters need to get your stories straight.The Voice said it was clearly a case of self-defense.

 

And why would the State Bar possiblybelieve that Gukeisen was a horrible person?  Could it have anything to dowith the 11 separate Bar complaints, unrelated to this incident, filed againsthim ?  Or the fact that he stabbed a college student to death?  Orthat he has now been charged with aggravated assault and kidnapping ?  Idon't know - take your choice.

Cocobear1171
Cocobear1171

SteelerDan - You talk about Dan drinking on the patio.  It's interesting that you try to portray him as a drunk even though he wasn't drinking, but Lee and Garrett were wasted that night.  You said his wife was going to divorce him by now.  Did she?  What do you mean that he's safer in jail than out of jail?  Are you referring to the death threats on Dan's life?

Jenny - No one needed to testify for Dan because the State couldn't prove anything. 

Ann - If you really think Garrett was innocent you are dillusional.  Taking a rock to someone's skull is serious.  If Garrett was alive he would have been charged with a crime; that rock could have killed Mike.

Anti-Voice - Mike had a chipped tooth. 

Strawberry -  There were not multiple stab wounds.  There was one puncture wound.  One.

It looks like no one has their facts straight.

Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

And now it Gukeisen has been indicted for Aggravated Assault (a class 3 felony), kidnapping (a class 2 felony) and criminal damage (a class 5 felony) (see:  http://www.superiorcourt.maric....  This APPARENTLY arose from him pulling a weapon on a court authorized process server - a real gem of an attorney.

A Voice of Reason
A Voice of Reason

First off.... I know alot more about this case...and the jounalist here has NO information on what actually happened that night.  The "victim" was trying to break into the townhouse where Gukeisen, his wife and his brother lived..he was not just 'walking by'.  Gukeisen and his brother called the cops and then tried to get the guys to go away.  Him and his friend then attacked Gukeisen and his brother... bashed the brother in the face with a big rock...and THEN the knife was drawn in self-defense as the DRUNK guy lunged at him with the rock.  NO jail time was deserved in this case.   It was self-defense.  Let's see if some punk tried to break into you house while you were in there with your pregnant wife, beat up your brother and you didn't do something other than say "please hit me with that rock too".

PUBLIC OUTCRY!!
PUBLIC OUTCRY!!

 There's some huge sentencing disparity here!  A non-violent, first offense, non-sexual touching in a pool = 75 years for one Arizona man!!  What's going on here with Arizona laws?

Response to Markcstaben
Response to Markcstaben

Markcstaben - I remember your case. Dan had an obligation to tell you about your the max penalty of 25 years and the sentence had nothing to do with him. It was the Judge's decision, not Dan's. YOU made the decision to plead guilty and you could have taken it to trial if you thought you were not guilty.

Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

Cocobear - what you didn't have to say about my post is more telling than what you did say. Out of all the facts that I reported, your only response is that "Mike had a chipped tooth"!!!   Yes, Mike had a chipped tooth - no one denies that Garrett punched Mike.  But "taking a rock to someone's skull" - there was no such evidence.  In fact, the only "evidence" of a rock came from Gukeisen's suggestion in his statement to the police who, as I pointed out, made an exhaustive search for the "rock" and could not find anything to substantiate Gukeisen's story.  Nor, obviously, could Gukeisen's lawyers, or they would have presented it.

As to your response to Jenny - the State proved its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  

As to your response to Ann - see above.  

As to your response to Strawberry - it is indeed unfortunate that some "news" outlets reported multiple stab wounds  when there was only one.  But when you stab someone to death, does it really matter?

But, hey, I urge everyone to not listen to me, Cocobear, or anyone else. Rather, find out for yourself about Gukeisen.  Go to the Tempe PD, Maricopa County Superior Court and the State  Bar to review public records pertaining to him.  They are much more telling than anything I could say.

As an update you'll be happy to know that Gukeisen has been suspended from practicing law in Arizona on an interim basis while his outright disbarment is working its way through the disciplinary process.  Go to:  http://www.azbar.org/FindALawy...  click on Gukeisen's name, then click the "Show lawyer history/discipline" link.

Also, Gukeisen is currently scheduled to go to trial on September 22, 2011, in a separate case in which he is charged with three new felonies (aggravated assault, kidnapping and criminal damage).

Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

SELF-DEFENSE???  How could it have been self defense when Gukeisen says he didn't do anything??  Instead, he points the finger at his own brother - nice guy.  Funny how, out of the three living witnesses, only Gukeisen says he didn't stab Garrett Hohn. And funny how at trial Gukeisen didn't claim self-defense - indeed his attorneys sought a new trial because the prosecutor once mentioned self-defense - but rather tried to blame his own brother for stabbing Garrett.

And wouldn't someone who had just defended his "castle" against an intruder in self-defense be quick - even anxious - to point that out to the police as soon as they arrived?  Funny how Gukeisen stayed upstairs in his condo FOR OVER ONE AND ONE-HALF HOURS, despite that fact that the area was crawling with police and EMTs.  If he acted in self-defense and was free of wrongdoing, why did he spend a portion of the time on the phone with representatives of two law firms? (Incidentally, he has since sued one of the lawyers he called that night).  If he acted in self-defense and was free of wrongdoing, why did he spend an hour and a half in an interview with Tempe detectives denying ANY KNOWLEDGE of a knife, of a stabbing, or that anything significant had occurred?ROCK??? What rock?  The Tempe police searched diligently for a rock, photographing and collecting several, never to find anything remotely resembling what Gukeisen described. Again funny (are you noticing a trend here) that, out of the three living witnesses, only Gukeisen says there was a rock.  Perhaps if Gukesen hadn't been And how did Garrett supposedly get the rock?  According to Gukeisen it was apparently when Garrett was knocked to the ground by MIchael, either by a push or a punch.  Again funny that Gukeisen is the ONLY one who says that Garrett was knocked to the ground by Michael. BASHED HIS FACE WITH A BIG ROCK???  Remind me now, just how many broken bones and stitches did Michael have.  Oh, yeah, NONE.BREAKING IN???  The Tempe police searched for any evidence that there was an attempt to break in, even taking the doors to the condo, to examine them for evidence of banging or having rocks thrown at them as described by Gukeisen - there was no such evidence.  Again funny that only Gukeisen (not his brother or his wife, or their dog) said that the banging was so loud he thought the condo was coming down.

PREGNANT WIFE???  Remind me again when the first of their children were born - how many months after this incident. Again, funny how Michael never mentioned any celebration at the condo that night because Kim might have been pregnant.  Instead, he said that he and his brother watched a college football game together.  I guess the question is "why would you conceive two children after having been charged with manslaughter?"  What was that his wife said in mitigation at the sentencing - oh, yea, that their children miss and need their father in their lives.

If there are any questions, perhaps they could have been answered by Gukeisen.  But, oh yea, he didn't testify at trial did he, instead hiding behind his privilege against self-incrimination.

VOICE, rather than spewing your BS why don't you suggest that readers review the extensive police reports, listen to the recorded interviews of Dan, Michael and Lee, and/or review transcripts of the trial testimony.  I know that FACTS will hurt, but FACTS probably provide a better basis for people to judge, just as the jury judged Gukeisen in this case.

And what about that "punk", as you refer to Garrett?  Gukeisen hired one of the highest profile and  most competent defense attorneys in Arizona.  They, in turn, hired several experts (none of whom ended up testifying at trial - wonder why), and undoubtedly an investigator or two.  Don't kid yourself into thinking that they didn't turn over every stone trying to dig up dirt on Garrett and Lee. What "dirt" did they present - nothing.  Why - because there was none.  Mr. Debus, to his benefit, acknowledged as much at the sentencing - that Garrett was a fine young man who tragically lost his life for no good reason.

VOICE, sling your half-truths and non-truths all you want.  For every point you make up, there are several FACTS to counter it.  You cannot justify Gukeisen's actions, because as a matter of FACT they were not justified (unless, of course, you believe that killing someone and then lying to the police about it are justified).

Ann
Ann

Three people know who hit Michael Gukeisen that night...Michael, Daniel and Kim because the hit came after the two brothers walked back into their condo.  If the two college students were trying to break into the residence why wasn't there fingerprints on the front door or windows?  Even the Almighty Larry Debus couldn't figure that one out.  Daniel Gukeisen is where he belongs and hopefully, his next criminal case which is pending will increase his time in the slammer.

Jenny
Jenny

well voice... sounds like you're trying to defend him. Were YOU there that fateful night? The journalist is just reporting the outcome of the case. Don't shoot *uh hum* STAB the messenger. If everyone is so quick to defend him, why didn't anyone, including his wife or himself, testify on his behalf?

Steelerdan70
Steelerdan70

No one was breaking in.  Gukeisen got off harassing ASU students walking by.  They rounded up girls that this slug dated off match.com who said all he wanted to do was sit on his patio and drink and yell shit to people walking by.  Gukeisen's brother testified against his own brother because in his words. "I'm tired of taking the rap for him".  Gukeisen's wife tried to divorce him before the trial started, but the proceedings were stopped because the defense lawyer knew she would testify against him.  Within a few months they will be divorced.  Gukeisen has jumped into the deep end of the pool on this one with no way out.  He would have been much safer in jail for a long time than he will ever be out of jail. 

Billy Buck
Billy Buck

 clean cut short haired males are the worst criminal offenders thats why they do more time in prison. you cant trust them. they use clean cut short haired yuppie look  to hide behind to fool the public so they can commit crimes. so they get more time than a longhair would who are really cool guys. the longhairs and hippies already paid their dues back in 1960s and 70s. now its the clean cuts turn to pay up with johnny law.

Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

Interesting that Cocobear has had a "relationship" with Dan going back to South Dakota in 2005. Dan, is that you??? In any event, another example of everything being someone's fault other than Dan's - imagine that.

Voice of Reason
Voice of Reason

Anti-Voice - You don't get a chipped tooth from a fist.  You get a chipped tooth from a rock.  Did the 'exhaustive' search for a rock from the police include the handful or two of rocks they picked up?  There are thousands of rocks in that area. 

What do you feel that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt?  They didn't prove anything.  Their main witness didn't even see anything.

Strawberry
Strawberry

anti-voice, you are so right on this one. You really hit this one on the head.  and Ithought that i read that his "wife" was his fiance at the time this took place? and it is so odd how he was able to keep the ball rolling for years on this one when it was clear from day one what took place.  He should have been charged shortly after he killed Garrett.  The whole issue has been a joke to him and he still kept it up after the verdict was read. he will never learn. he will only bury himself further because when  you start to spin a web you cant un spin it. It is not llike he accidently fell into Garrett, he made the choices he made that night on his own and could have at any point changed them.

Voice- I am sure you are his friend or even a family member,  Facts clearly show that he killed that young man because he flat out is a heartless man who cares only about himself.  My husband and I were cllients of his and right before he killed that poor young man we had sued him for taking money that he did not have the right to take. he charged our credit card several times when he never rendered services,  We won of course..  Gukeisen is a horrible excuse of a man and a waste of life.  He deserves to be locked up and tortured for the rest of his life.  What he did was unthinkable and karma seems to be a friend of his.  He does not deserve to even be locked up, he deserves to be straight tortured. The young man whose life was taken had his whole life in front of him, and Gukesien made the choice to act on impulse and end it.  The anger that is felt daily by the loved ones is i am sure unbearable.  Gukeisen will never get what he deserves sice the system is flawed.  I wonder had he been another race or even not an attorney himself would the punishment been more severe?  The system failed yet again in this case, and I wish I could have been on that jury panel.  I can only imagine how he felt when he found out he was basically getting off scott free and will be able to still live his life when the short five years is over. Its a shame really. Justice was not served and the fact that he still screwed up after  being sentenced shows  just how mental and twisted his mind is.  I am sure we will be reading about him in the next five years to come and then after his release we will surely see he has slipped up again.  I feel sorry for you Voice... You are protecting a man who could turn on you one day!  and shame on you for not knowing facts and bat for the criminal.  Judgment day will not be kind to you either......  Do you not realize that a young mans life will never take place because he is no longer with us? do you not realize that  he was someones son, brother, grandson and friend.  He was about to start his life, and never had a chance. self defense you claim? Hmmmm.... multiple stab wounds? nice try on that one.. Not buying it... He knew what he was doing when he approached that young man with a knife he had to have picked up and stabbed him several times.  that is not self defense? why would he have a knife?  why did he not claim that is what it was to begin with?  why did he not tell the police and ems that story to begin with?  seems he knew that no one buy it and needed time to think up another story. 

To the family of Garrett, my prayers go out to you always for the peace that will allow you to get through each day.  Know that you are not alone and he is thought about by everyone who has read this story.  In some ways he has touched our lives and has been a blessing to those who knew him.  Stay strong and know that the man who did this will be delt with one day and will have to answer to the only being that can truly punish him.  I lost a dear friend two years ago to a man who had shot him while my friend was trying to protect his little "brother".  the man who did this actually got off saying self defense. and he had shot another man killed him too a few years before that and got off with self defense on that too.  The system is not a fair one, but in time they will get what they deserve. 

Abc24
Abc24

Ann... were you not at the trial when Lee Hendrickson said, "ONE PUNCH WAS THROWN, AND MY FRIEND THREW IT." To insiuate the hit came after the fact is ridiculous.

Voice of Reason
Voice of Reason

Anti-Voice,

You're acting as though the State Bar is agreeing with you that Dan is a horrible person.  That's not the case.  The State Bar would take away the license of anyone who was charged with a felony. 

You should really read the transcripts or listen to the audio of the interview.  Gukeisen never stated "you really found the knife" like Kittridge stated in open court.  Again, Kittridge misled the jury, just as he did in his closing argument.  Gukeisen talked about them finding "A knife" NOT "the knife".  There's a big difference. 

Of course Gukeisen had something palmed in his hand.  It was his cell phone, the same one that he used to call 911 when Garrett and Lee were attacking his home.  Lee should remember this since both Gukeisen brothers discussed the phone to him and showed it to him, but oh that's right, Lee was completely drunk that night and doesn't know what really happened.

Anti-Voice
Anti-Voice

Cocobear - (1) Yes, my recollection is that the police "rock" search included the small loose rocks they picked up that were admitted as evidence at trial, as well as the larger rocks in the area that were imbedded in the ground and not capable of being dislodged and used as a "weapon."  So, where was the larger loose rock that Gukeisen - and ONLY Gukeisen - saw?  Obviously, it was part of the lie Gukeisen contrived in the hour and a half he refused to come out to his condo.(2) The State proved beyond a reasonable doubt AT LEAST that Gukeisen killed Garrett without justification and met the criteria for Manslaughter under the statute.  (3) The state's main witness,as a matter of fact, did not see a knife in Gukeisen's hand - he knew Gudeisen was palming something, but wasn't able to see what it was.  He did see Gukeisen swing at Garret, hitting him in the side of the chest, and shortly after realized that Garret was bleeding from that very area.  No matter how you look at it, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4.  And remember, it was Gukeisen who denied over and over to the police knowing anything about a weapon or an injury, UNTIL they told him they had found the knife - at which time Gukeisen said, dejectedly,  "you really found the knife."  By the way, Gukeisen has been disbarred in Arizona (see: http://www.azbar.org/FindALawy.... According the State Bar website, he ACKNOWLEDGED violating Ethical Rule 8.4(b) which provides: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

Loading...