Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Temporary Tattoos


  • A robbery defendant gets a makeover so that jurors can give him a fair hearing without judging his tattoos. [RJ]
  • Ammon Bundy's attorney wants to inspect grand jury selection records. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed a $70 million judgment in the Suen v. Sands case. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • A nice little piece on the son/legacy of one of Las Vegas' first black lawyers. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • An important resource if you're practicing in Northern Nevada--the Washoe County Bar Association Judicial Survey.
  • Metro to pay $200K settlement in excessive force case. [RJ]
  • Woman gets out of jail on own recognizance for gambler diversion program. [RJ]

18 comments:

  1. Previously, the government indicated they wanted to keep a lot of the evidence under lock and key in the Bundy case because the Bundys and their supporters were using this evidence to harass people. The judge mostly agreed with the government attorneys recently on this point.

    I find it interesting how the Bundy attorneys now want to inspect grand jury selection records, probably in an effort to find out who was on the grand jury.

    Talk about making the harassment obvious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, except what benefit is there to harassing grand jury members after an indictment is returned? Serious question. Can they do backsies?

      Delete
    2. they just want to show that Obama and Harry Reid conspired against them by stacking the grand jury.

      Delete
    3. This is not something rare. It is done in state court quite often. The purpose is to ensure that the grandjury is made up of impartial cross section of the community.

      Yes, they can do "backsies" a new grandjury is constructed.

      Delete
  2. Funny thing about the tattoos is the jury may read the paper so they will know. I know they are instructed not to, but juries never listen to that shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm baffled by the ruling of the judge. I would have thought that evidence of any criminal defendant changing his appearance - at the request of his lawyers or on his own - would be admissible against him. Seems like there is substantial caselaw on this. Instead, the judge appears to be assisting him in hiding his true appearance. Perhaps I don't know the full story.

      Delete
    2. What the hell are you talking about? His appearance is not an issue regarding the underlying crime/identity purposes. His appearance was preventing them from seating an impartial jury, hence what happened. A jury cannot judge a defendant's guilt on his appearance, and without covering his tattoos they were apparently not going to be able to seat a jury.

      Delete
    3. And FYI, it was the State, not the defense, who requested that the tattoos be covered.

      Delete
    4. Maybe with all the makeup he will look like Trump and get elected ...

      Delete
    5. @9:19.... I agree with 10:32. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

      Delete
  3. 9:19 here. Well, consciousness of guilt evidence is admissible. Changing your appearance is evidence of a consciousness of guilt and fear of identification, regardless of whether or not identification is an "issue" in the case. I did say that I didn't know the full story. Although, your comment just gives me more questions, to-wit: "his appearance was preventing them from seating an impartial jury". What is the correct legal standard for evaluating someone's appearance in seating an impartial jury? Sounds like a slippery slope. If it is true that the prosecution requested that the defendant change his appearance for the jury, then they must have had their due process reasons. Or they are just getting soft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:19: "Changing your appearance is evidence of a consciousness of guilt and fear of identification, regardless of whether or not identification is an "issue" in the case."

      This can't be something that you're proud of typing...

      Delete
    2. 9:19 is sad now. That was straight from his/her bar exam answer yesterday

      Delete
    3. Changing your appearance is not consciousness of guilt when you're talking about picking a jury. Please tell me that you're not an actual attorney that practices in criminal law. EVERYONE changes their appearance before a jury trial (victims and defendants). Little Susie that is a goth teenager who wears black lipstick will be in front of the jury with pigtails and a sundress. The prostitute that was raped will be in a suit. etc

      This is not a slippery slope when the jury says I cannot be fair and impartial because he looks like a racist criminal.

      The prosecution isn't getting soft, they don't want to create appellate issues. It's called thinking ahead.

      Delete
    4. The tattoos are only admissible if it goes toward an issue such as identification or is critical to identification. Apparently this is not the case because the State asked for makeup and the defense is not objecting. I agree it seems wacky like covering up Charles Manson's swastika.

      Delete
    5. This is the person that questioned the stupidity of your original "baffling" thoughts regarding this matter, and I second the comment that dear GOD I hope you do not now and have no intentions of practicing criminal law in the future. Wow! Your argument is basically that a criminal defendant must look like they did on the date of the alleged crime and that is 100% absurd. What is the correct legal standard for THAT assertion?! Lol.

      Delete
  4. 9:19/11:29 - re: what is the correct legal standard . . .: Do we look like fucking westlaw? Look this shit up for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He literally asks about "the correct legal standard" for arbitrarily judging a criminal defendant's appearance while also in the same breath arguing that a criminal defendant is precluded from changing his appearance...lol. No regard for the "correct legal standard" there, huh? Fool.

      Delete