Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Talks Too Much


  • Judge Bill Kephart faces ethics charges for giving tv interview. [RJ]
  • Justice of the Peace Amy Chelini found Bishop Gorman football coach, Kenny Sanchez, not guilty of domestic violence. [RJ]

40 comments:

  1. Team Almase is getting the word and the vote out, with a strong showing of the 4 or so votes they have garnered so far, and they all keep posting the same thing on the legal blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you, who are you kidding, the supporters of Almase are coming out in droves? You are crazy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where can I get a Almase button?

      Delete
  3. Not that I'm taking up for Judge Kephart, but the situation is a bit different than Judge Bill Potter contacting the press.

    Judge Potter apparently contacted the press to offer his views on an active case being litigated in his department,as well as his unflattering views of one of the attorneys involved.

    Kephart is discussing a case not assigned to his court, but in which he served as one of the prosecutors years earlier.

    I was wondering if that distinction makes a difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking along similar lines.

      Delete
  4. Case was twice tried years ago...he did nothing wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....other than put an innocent girl on trial.

      Delete
  5. 9:39 here again.

    If an innocent girl was put on trial that is obviously an extremely serious matter to be dealt with in the appropriate forum, but that is not the narrow ethical dilemma he is facing.

    So, for the immediate purposes, the issue is not whether he was an over zealous prosecutor, or whether he did anything improper as a prosecutor. As mentioned, that will, presumably, be dealt with in the fashion it should.

    The issue he currently faces with the Commission is that he, as a sitting judge, is publicly commenting on that case that he once served as a prosecutor.

    If a judge comments on such a case, and the case is long dormant and nothing the judge says could make any difference, it is a less serious matter. But if the case, for whatever reason, is returning to court, and the Defendant has a shot at some substantive relief, a sitting judge, who was once a prosecutor on the case, should not be commenting. To make such public pronouncements can influence and taint matters(at least in theory).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Entirely inappropriate (which is why Bill Terry's defense is not that he did nothing wrong but that this is a blip on an otherwise unblemished judicial career). I would take it a step further than even you 11:55. "But if the case, for whatever reason, is returning to court, and the Defendant has a shot at some substantive relief, a sitting judge, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE OR SHE was once a prosecutor on the case, should not be commenting." Period. Judges should not make public pronouncements and commentaries on cases. Period. No equivocation. No explanation. Kephart wants to be a witness or a legal commentator, he needs to the leave the Bench. Kephart wants to defend his name; he needs to leave the Bench.

      Delete
    2. Rule 2.10. (A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

      He's a sitting judge in District Court, where an evidentiary hearing will be heard in another District Court department for a case he prosecuted, and says "I stand behind what we did. I have no qualms about what happened and how we prosecuted this matter. I believe it was completely justice done."

      Sorry, but that statement "might reasonably" affect the outcome of the hearing, especially since the statement comes from a colleague down the hall.

      Delete
    3. I think it is borderline in terms of "expected to affect the outcome", but discretion is the better part of valor. Keep your mouth shut.

      Delete
    4. "Might reasonably" makes it very broad, though.

      Delete
    5. With all the cases in which the DA has been found to have hidden evidence, not once, as far as I know, has the State Bar disciplined a prosecutor for that offense.

      Delete
    6. Or an Attorney General. Or an AUSA (at least those who actually get licensed in this state). Prosecutorial Teflon.

      Delete
  6. I think they are selling the Almase buttons for $15 a piece. If she sells just 6,000 buttons she will have raised close to the amount that Campbell has raised. Who wants a button? Buttons here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet A's still gonna win. Mo' money mo' problems.

      Delete
  7. Where is early voting in Las Vegas today?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. City Hall *(until 5:30), Meadows Mall *(until 6), Farm & Durango Albertsons *(until 5), Veterans Memorial (until 6).

      Delete
    2. Thank you!

      Delete
  8. Why in the hell did they try Sanchez for domestic abuse when his ex-fiancé, the woman he supposedly abused, recanted her testimony and actually testified in favor of Sanchez? What a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Who green lit that prosecution? Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because genuine victims of domestic violence regularly recant and refuse to cooperate.

      Delete
    2. True, although it sounds like the physical evidence was lacking as well, as opposed to being one of those "I threw myself down the stairs" deals.

      Delete
    3. i think they prosecuted this case before victims of domestic violence started to recant.

      Delete
  9. https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/report-details-late-night-jailhouse-attorney-client-rendezvous/

    As promised, much more to this story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is an expensive tit rub.

      Delete
    2. Are they allowed to record visits from counsel?

      Delete
    3. There was no audio, so they can

      Delete
    4. Ew. Just ew.

      Delete
    5. Throw away your career because you can't keep your hands off some lowlife gangbanger. Nice.

      Delete
    6. Did Langford forget to tell Alexis to shut the hell up again?

      Delete
    7. Alexis, you might not want to post pictures of your co-defendant kissing you on your law firm's Facebook page. Little bit of free legal advice since your attorney clearly forgot to mention that.

      Delete
    8. Playing out the professional conduct question - if they had a preexisting relationship I am guessing that is the point of her Facebook post...? But it undermines any claim that the phone use was case related. Ultimately, if I believed there was a prison "witch hunt" (her words, not mine), I'd presume big brother was always watching.

      Delete
    9. Trainwreck.

      Delete
    10. Maybe we're just jealous of true love. That blessed arrangement. That dream within a dream.

      Delete
  10. Ew. Ew. Eeewwwwwwww.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm voting for Campbell because Josh is just dreamy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty sure @7:53 was being sarcastic.

      Delete