Friday, April 6, 2012

Friday Open Thread!

Image from: here
Rise and shine, Las Vegas legal community - and TGIF!  Prey tell, what's going on out there?

20 comments:

  1. I got my ass handed to me in Justice Court. I'm still fairly new so I take losing vary hard. Is it standard for Justice Court judges to completely disregard the law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Next question.

      Delete
  2. In general, citing the law to a JP will only serve to confuse him or her.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That’s pretty standard. Wait until you run into a District Court Judge who previously served as a Justice of the Peace. Then all bets are off; increased stakes – same disregard for the law. Sometimes the hearings are such a farce I walk out and expect to be interviewed by Doug Llewelyn.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hate putting on preliminary hearings that actually have issues. I'll usually just use the testimony to build my issue, submit it at the end of the prelim, and then writ it. JPs need to learn that "slight or marginal evidence" still requires SOME level of evidence. Some JPs are just a warm body rubber stamp for a DAs criminal complaint. Yes...I am bitter...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh and it's common for most judges, JC or DC, to totally disregard the law when it's in favor of a criminal defendant. Welcome to the practice of criminal defense in Nevada.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once had a case where victim told the cops he did not see his attacker's face because he was wearing a full ski mask, blue jeans and hoodie, but thought he a black. An hour later the victim was asked to do a one on one with several black males found in the general area of the crime and wearing jeans and hoodies. After observing them all from a few feet under the glare of a spotlight he told the cop he could not identify his attacker who was wearing a full ski mask.

    At prelim when asked to identify his attacker he immediately pointed to my client who was conveniently the only black male sitting at the defense table, or for that matter in the court room (and in a blue jumpsuit wearing shackles)and said "that's him." On cross he admitted his attacker was wearing a full mask and he could not identify anyone that night (though my client was in the one on one)but swore he could now because "the light in the courtroom is better." Outcome? Bound up and off to the races.

    hence the phrase "Just put it on, submit it and writ it."

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ 12:14 - next time try a sargeant notice (says that your client will not be attending the preliminary hearing), arrive early, and make sure the jail does not transport your client (assuming he or she is in custody). It's great for cases with ID issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. At the end of the day, no matter how strong your position, the judges have their own agenda in this town (getting reelected) and will not be swayed by either the law or common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ 12:14

    I did file sargeant and the judge still ordered my client into the courtroom. Once again, the law is not nearly as cut and dry as I'd like it to be, at least not in every court room.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 14 plead in HOA case including one lawyer and one disbarred lawyer. I bet the disbarred one is Jeanne Winkler.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So we have attorneys who are suing an anonymous blog poster under the name "Lawyer". Well this should at least be interesting First Amendment law.

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/lawsuit-filed-against-anonymous-commenter-146777995.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. To follow up the earlier comment on "Lawyer", the Motion to Quash states that it could be a man or woman but then states "She has commented on judges that she thinks have wronged her." Oops.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is "Lawyer" the frequent poster who claims to be from Louisiana and practices primarily Bankruptcy Law or am I confusing him/her with someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The funny thing is the RJ was allowing comments on the lawsuit this morning but now looks like it has closed the comments section. I presume for fear that someone might "out" Lawyer who it appears from the story acknowledges that they might not be the most liked example of the species.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What I like most from the RJ story: "Disclosure of his or her identity would effectively ruin 'Lawyer's' career. He or she would be reported to the bar, likely suspended, and not able to practice."

    Is Abbatangelo really taking the position that his client's identity should be concealed because if it were known that his client violated the RPC, his client might get punished for it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Having read the Motion to Quash, all you can say is either (a) "Lawyer" is doing a terrible job of ghostwriting for Abbatangelo or (b) now I know how I got so many rulings from Judge Abbatangelo which were legally groundless.

    He argues that Lawyer is a hated attorney in the community. He then argues that outing "Lawyer" will make her so vilified that no one will work with her. I thought you said that she was already vilified and hated.

    The brief argues extensively that defamatory speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Not exactly the point I would emphasize.

    Finally the argument that disclosure would lead to Lawyer being suspended from the practice of law certainly implies that the conduct constitutes a violation of law--hard to convince the Court that it should protect a person who appears to be admitted to breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Did we ever find out who posted the comment? It sounds like deputy district attorney. Is there a follow up on this story that revealed the anonymous commenter?

    ReplyDelete