Tuesday, October 12, 2021

The Nuclear Option

  • Chief Judge Linda Bell says there is a backlog of about 2,300 criminal and civil jury trials and what could be done about them. [Fox5Vegas]
  • The U.S. DOJ is investigating whether Nevada is violating the civil rights of institutionalized youth. [Nevada Current]
  • The Nevada Supreme Court ordered new sentencing for man convicted in reckless DUI case that killed two. [Nevada Appeal]
  • Raiders coach Jon Gruden resigns after NY Times article about his offensive emails. [NY Times]
  • City Hall video of fight between two councilwomen was apparently deleted. [RJ]

41 comments:

  1. Oh, look, more leniency for DUI murder drivers by the Nevada Supreme Court. Hope none of the justices or their families are impacted by dui then they would get a dose of realism that they are lenient on murderers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leniency? No. They're just redoing the sentencing because the trial judge messed up. Dude is still guilty.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I hate it when judges mess up and don't follow the law they were sworn to uphold... stupid Supreme Court for following the Constitution.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the constitutions allows dui drivers off, MADD. Nevada Supreme Court does not follow the constitution 80 percent of the time. stupid Nevada Supreme Court.

      Delete
    4. Sleep well the same exact sentence will be imposed again.

      Delete
    5. @9:59 so you are saying courts shouldn't follow the law of sentencing when the convicted person committed DUI homicide? You're either not a lawyer or you're a really bad one. Why are you even here?

      Delete
    6. So, I guess the sentencing judge is not a lawyer or a really bad one? Good logic.

      Delete
    7. To 9:59 -- Your remark betrays your lack of understanding of the merits of the decision and serves as a dead giveaway that you are NOT an attorney or otherwise involved in the legal profession (e.g. as a paralegal). I keep saying this: STAY OFF THIS BLOG, YOU PEOPLE! The rest of us earned our creds. You didn't. Go port your absurdist nonsense over to Parler, or OAN, or Faux Newz. You want to comment on here? Get your law degree. Learn how to think. Learn how much your mind presently exists in darkness. Then you can come here and comment . . . .

      Delete
    8. I happen to agree with 9:59. The NSC has had very pro dui opionions in the last year. So I guess, my law degree from Duke and my two law licenses makes me a non-attorney, because you disagree with a higher court decision, okay. I think 6:37 lives in a very dark place.

      Delete
    9. If people don’t like the law, then have the law changed through the legislative process.

      Delete
    10. Just because there were some errors made in high profile DUI cases the last few years doesn't mean the NSC is pro DUI. An error is an error whether it's a DUI case, family law, or whatever. The idea that the NSC should overlook clear legal errors just because it's a DUI case and you like the end result is just dead wrong.

      Delete
    11. "dead wrong" when two lives lost is insensitive. I read the opinion, and I thought the opinion was flawed. Nevada Supreme Court will not tolerate "errors" in criminal cases, or will find some that do not exist as is in this case.

      Delete
    12. What was flawed?

      Delete
    13. The decision is flawed, because of the facts of the case, allowing Arapcio off for killing two people. It is flawed for many other reasons, including that the their interpretation of "victim" is too narrow.

      Delete
    14. What can't you understand about everyone above telling you that the conviction still stands and he's going to get a similar sentence the second time around, this time in an error-free sentencing hearing? Nobody is letting him off for killing two people. He's still in prison and will remain there for a long time.

      Delete
    15. Wow, have some nasty trolls on here. Everybody, thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
  2. Let Gruden be a learning lesson - never put anything in an email you don't want published in the NY Times

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not the lesson I hope people would take from this.

      Delete
    2. Also, don't be racist, homophobic, etc.

      Delete
    3. lol @ that being your take away from the situation.

      Delete
    4. What he said was terrible, and the fact that he tried to write the initial email off as an aberration, knowing that there was a bunch of other stuff out there, is stupid at a minimum. On the other hand, I'm sure I probably said some stuff back in the 80's and 90's that, while in keeping with the mores and standards of acceptable language at the time, would get me in trouble today. My views on a number of subjects are different today than they were then, but thank God that email was not widely used. But as far as Gruden is concerned, there ain't much daylight between 2011 and 2021. He needed to go.

      Delete
    5. 10:45 sure, but one key distinction here is that the emails are not from the 80s and 90s. They're from the early 2010s through 2018.

      Delete
    6. Yes, and that was the intended point of my final sentence.

      Delete
    7. okay well i can't read

      Delete
    8. 11:54's comment should be the tagline for the comments section of this blog!

      Delete
  3. I do not favor cancel culture. I hate the process. I hate the lack of due process, inconsistency, etc. But Jon Gruden is a less than sympathetic cancelee. His statements in the last week indicate the bare minimum, PR motivated, feigned contrition. Those emails are who he is, even now.

    I also find it extremely unlikely that his behavior is an aberration at ESPN or the Raiders organization. In fact, there is an ESPN history book I read a while back that details a lot of the ugly behavior that has occurred there over the years. You'll never look at Mike Tirico the same again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lucy here,
    Y'all be careful lest your own past discretions surface. If we are being honest, every one of you has said something racist, homophobic or misogynistic to a friend, at a bar or in an email. Yes, Gruden managed to touch all three "third-rail" no-nos, so he is electrocuted.

    Question: Somebody knew about these emails for a long time, they were not just recently discovered. Did the Raiders use this as an excuse to terminate an under performing and excuse making coach?
    Good Grief!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Grudens actions never match his words. Standard blowhard hypocrite egomaniac. This all came out from his interactions with the WFT and the hushed invesigations into the team. Dude's brother was a wreck who coached there for a bit if you recall.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What up with "istic" speech right now? I have never and will never understand why one group gets to censor another group. Just makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The decent have always censored the indecent.

      Delete
    2. Also, nobody is being censored. You can still say unpopular things. You just have to deal with the consequences of people knowing you say unpopular things. The Raiders are a business and that business isn't in the business of alienating large swaths of fans.

      Delete
  7. I see a lot of people casting stones on this thread. I'm 100% sure, none of you, including myself, would pass muster by today's standards/cancel culture. Any email, social media post, text, etc.. can surface 10 years from now and you could lose your job over it. The internet is forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can say with 100 percent certainty that no text or email I have sent since 2011 has any of the phrases Jon Gruden used.

      Delete
    2. Maybe the "protect racism and racists at all costs culture" is the real problem, not exposing it.

      Delete
    3. I can say with 100 percent certainty that my emails since 2011 have contained all seven of the seven words George Carlin said you can't say on television. And I can attribute that fact to various opposing counsel, although the emails have never been directed to them.

      Delete
  8. So, 8 of the 14 applicants to fill Betsy Gonzalez's seat recently ran and lost judicial elections, and 5 of the other 6 are children, under 40. Oh, boy!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow. Read Agnes Botelho's description of the Villala case. She tells the story of why she left the DA's office when she was punished for dismissing a case because the cop hid exculpatory evidence and she believed the defendant was innocent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, where? Is she no longer with the DAs office?

      Delete
    2. Where is this description?

      Delete
  10. https://nvcourts.gov/AOC/Committees_and_Commissions/Judicial_Selection/Applicants/

    Although, she didn't leave so much as "think" about leaving, so it's not quite the case study in morality this post suggests.

    ReplyDelete