Monday, May 23, 2016

Mild Monday


  • If you want to run for the open Henderson Justice of the Peace seat, this week is your chance to file. [RJ]
  • LACSN is going to start offering attorney services to people who may be subject to court-approved guardianships. [RJ]
  • Anything else going on out there this week?

43 comments:

  1. Other guardianship coverage over the weekend:

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/nevada-guardianship-panel-likes-subpoena-power-florida-county

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/questions-surround-professional-guardian-who-left-nevada

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wolfson should be so proud of the bullshit deal he struck with Chumlee. Dude should be in jail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go back to 1997! The narrative in 2016 is that we're in a mass incarceration state and scum bags like Chumlee should get off with a hand slap.

      Delete
    2. Dude should be in rehab, not jail. If you had his $$$, you would be well armed. Cannot excuse the meth but who cares about some weed. Sex assault allegations probably a blackmail attempt. Police likely exceeded the specifics of the search warrant. What kind of sexual assault evidence would they find in a safe? It's a stretch.

      Delete
    3. Pictures of the alleged victim? We'll never know unless the accuser comes forward and tells what she told investigators. But writing off the accuser as an extortionist makes me think you should head back to 1997 too.

      Delete
    4. You really think he committed sexual assault and kept pictures or video? Obviously, the Police didn't find your imaginary evidence, thus the plea he took. Sorry you are a little slow and have to have the dots connected for you. Right, that sort of blackmail never happens here, especially with a rich, dumb celebrity and a likely outcall dancer. Just ask Celine's dead husband.

      Delete
    5. You are so on, you should write the script on how to commit the perfect crime. Sexual predators do take pics and video of sexual assaults.

      Delete
    6. No 8:24, you're wrong. That has never happened. Ever. And no one has ever even told an investigator it happened to establish probable cause. Sorry you are a little slow and have to have the dots connected for you.

      Delete
    7. 9:53, have you even read any news for the last five years? With camera phones so prevalent people get busted for videotaping or taking pictures of rapes all the time, like in the Steubenville case. Even before camera phones, there are cases, like that cosmetics heir in San Diego, where serial predators video attacks or keep trophy photos. It might not be applicable in this case, but to claim it never happens is just......not correct.

      Delete
    8. 9:53 here. I agree with you. I was making fun of 12:55, who made a ridiculously dumb argument and then suggested that the previous poster was dumb for not agreeing with it. In the future I'll try to go more over the top with my sarcasm.

      Delete
    9. I'm sorry for misreading your comment 9:53. I think the internet has made satire harder because there are so many genuinely stupid people that it's hard to tell when it's sarcasm

      Delete
  3. What did Chumlee do? What is his prohibited person gun status (felon, domestic violence, what?). Were the charges BS to begin with? Anybody know?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably drug-related under NRS 202.257, since the police seized meth and weed, and he's never been charged with DV. He's not a convicted felon.

      Delete
    2. 12:19 PM--Why was he a prohibited person? What else could it be? Has to some kind of order or probation--no firearms or a category. Was that just a charge that never saw the light of day. Obviously, they got a warrant based on information from the alleged victim or other sources looking for drugs and whatever.

      Delete
    3. Drug addicts are prohibited people and that definition is vague.

      Delete
    4. Of course it's vague BS. It's an unconstitutionally vague law. But it does its job of providing DAs with a tool to overcharge and apply leverage. If you recall, David Schubert was also originally charged under this statute, and when sentencing time came around, Ellsworth was upset that "three felonies were dismissed, including a firearms charge."

      Delete
  4. It would only take 3 minutes of Chumlee clips for me to find probable cause of serious drug possession and use.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Looks like it could have been a goofy charge to begin with. So you can't drink at home and be over 0.10. Usually that charge is saved for when you are out drinking and brandishing a firearm. I gather that when the police execute a search warrant they are going to find a charge out of it. Good result for Chumlee. Here is statute:
    NRS 202.257  Possession of firearm when under influence of alcohol, controlled substance or other intoxicating substance; administration of evidentiary test; penalty; forfeiture of firearm.
    1.  It is unlawful for a person who:
    (a) Has a concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath; or
    (b) Is under the influence of any controlled substance, or is under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance, or any person who inhales, ingests, applies or otherwise uses any chemical, poison or organic solvent, or any compound or combination of any of these, to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely exercising actual physical control of a firearm,
    Ê to have in his or her actual physical possession any firearm. This prohibition does not apply to the actual physical possession of a firearm by a person who was within the person’s personal residence and had the firearm in his or her possession solely for self-defense.
    2.  Any evidentiary test to determine whether a person has violated the provisions of subsection 1 must be administered in the same manner as an evidentiary test that is administered pursuant to NRS 484C.160 to 484C.250, inclusive, except that submission to the evidentiary test is required of any person who is directed by a police officer to submit to the test. If a person to be tested fails to submit to a required test as directed by a police officer, the officer may direct that reasonable force be used to the extent necessary to obtain the samples of blood from the person to be tested, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested was in violation of this section.
    3.  Any person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    4.  A firearm is subject to forfeiture pursuant to NRS 179.1156 to 179.119, inclusive, only if, during the violation of subsection 1, the firearm is brandished, aimed or otherwise handled by the person in a manner which endangered others.
    5.  As used in this section, the phrase “concentration of alcohol of 0.10 or more in his or her blood or breath” means 0.10 gram or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the blood of a person or per 210 liters of his or her breath.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Over the weekend, the R-J reported that federal prosecutor Greg Damm is "retiring" at the end of the month, but that he had given notice prior to the screw-up that resulted in a plea deal that set an alleged armed robber free. http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/robberies/federal-prosecutors-face-fallout-las-vegas-armed-robbery-plea-deal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes absolutely. We do not sanction. We retire our AUSAs. Don't worry. He will pop up with Rick Wright and Russell Marsh or somewhere else.

      Delete
    2. One would think that Damm's smackdown by the 9th Circuit back in 2009 would have been enough to prompt "retirement".

      Delete
    3. @11:12 But that case (It was Sean Flanagan's case right?) it only got uglier for Damm and the whole office who kept the dirty play going all the way through the 9th Circuit. All dirtiness over in that office.

      Delete
  7. Got a case against Hutchinson & Steffen and don't really know anything about them except that Hutchinson is a politician. Any insight into how that firm is to deal with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I only went against Cami Perkins, and it looks like she has moved on. For all the hate she got on WWL, she actually wasn't that bad to deal with.

      Delete
    2. They are grinders, they will work the case within an inch of its life.

      Delete
    3. Agree with 5:55 PM.

      Delete
    4. Which attorney is the case with? Makes a difference in how the case will be handled.

      Delete
  8. On an unrelated topic. Was anyone in this courtroom today and saw what happened?

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/las-vegas-judge-handcuffs-public-defender-courtroom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is an appropriate remedy when an attorney repeatedly, day after day, talks over the judge and continues to interrupt the judge when he's talking, even after they've been admonished by the judge to stop?

      Delete
    2. Every time I see a picture of Conrad Hafen, I think he looks more like Hal Hammond, the villain in that terrible "Green Lantern" movie.

      Delete
    3. Why do I get the feeling that he would not have done that to a man.

      Delete
    4. Because you don't know him.

      Delete
  9. A little surprising...

    ReplyDelete
  10. A little surprising? Outrageous is the right word

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think arresting her was the right thing to do. Maybe removing her, or speaking to Cohn, just shocking it got to this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did he arrest her? It sounds like he had her put in cuffs for 30 minutes and then let her out of them. He says she's been talking over him for 6 months. I have never talked over a judge. Once I almost did and I apologized profusely. So I mean, this doesn't seem that surprising. Is this a criminal defense lawyer thing? I went against Lisa Rasmussen once and she would freak out and scream at the judge any time the judge ruled against her. I couldn't believe it.

      Delete
    2. Uh, he had his bailiff (sorry, his marshal) cuff her and stick her in the jury box with other defendants. I am 100% certain that the results would have been very poor had she attempted to leave. So, yes, she was most definitely arrested.

      Delete
    3. Eh, but she wasn't booked and processed. She was essentially put in time out. The judge sent a warning. I've never appeared in front of this judge, so maybe he's a huge dick and this was all unwarranted, but if a lawyer is consistently disrespectful to a judge he/she can't be surprised when there's repercussions.


      For what it's worth, I have found Las Vegas judges to be far more lenient on this type of stuff than the ones I appear in front of in Los Angeles.

      Delete
  12. Anyone have a link to the transcript? It was referred to by the article, so it's apparently available.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Talking over or arguing with the court is not zealous advocacy. It is disrespect, plain and simple. Unfortunately, this new class of attorney (40 and under) are part of the "me" generation that think only their opinions matter and so it's nothing to them to talk over the court, argue with the court, etc. If your client got a raw deal, there are legal mechanism for reconsideration and appeal.

    I am a part of this generation myself -- my Facebook wall had at least a dozen of my law school friends and colleagues praising this public defender for her disrespect, and admonishing the court for its "harsh" treatment. No one was on the other side.

    This is the beginning of the end of our "profession."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Wall Street Journal picked up the story and there's a link to the full transcript there. Bakhtary was out of line and should have STFU when Hafen told her to. Her client was toast and the judge even took the time to explain to him why. If the story is behind the pay wall, you can get to it from Google.

      Delete