- Quickdraw McLaw
- 46 Comments
- 162 Views
- Governor Sisolak sets June 1 as goal for Nevada being 100% open. [TNI; RJ]
- The Nevada Assembly passed a bill that would abolish the death penalty. [TNI]
- The Board of Examiners approved a payment of $1.35 million to Fred Steese for his wrongful conviction. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Major development sues Henderson over park construction. [RJ]
So the chair of Senate Judiciary and the leader of the Senate both work for Wolfson who testified in opposition to abolition of the death penalty. Sure highlights why they shouldn't be allowed to do both jobs.
Yup
Who are the specific employees of Wolfson? I am for the death penalty, keep it.
I am for the death penalty if the sentence is actually carried out.
30 years ago my first brush with a death penalty case was while clerking for a Superior Court judge. The defendant, a meek small man, tortured two children to enforce his discipline about the children pooping in their pants. One child died.
A jury found special circumstances and the defendant was sentenced to death.
This POS felon is still sitting in a cell (meals, cot, TV and no stress) because California won't carry out an execution.
The death penalty is barbaric. I have visited multiple prisons. The suggestion from 12:07 PM that it's kicked back, no stress and relaxed is ridiculous. If I had to choose between life in prison or immediate death, I would choose death. Not even a close call.
Killing that felon won't bring those kids back. Make that POS sit in a cell for as long as possible.
@ 12:50
Yep, jail life is so tough, such a strong lesson to inmates, that there is no recidivism.
Yep.
12:50 here.
Yeah, it's that simple. Recidivism is because prison isn't unpleasant enough. It's not because of any other factors. If we just made prison more awful, we would have no repeat offenders. Makes sense!
The death penalty should be abolished because the one side(12:50) indicates it's barbaric, and the side that supports it(12:07) essentially really does not support it as it is currently configured–wherein two decades after the death penalty is pronounced, and millions spent on legal proceedings, the sentence is still nowhere close to being carried out.
Our bold, courageous, decisive, D.A. makes the timely(warning: sarcasm alert) that Nevada inmate Zane Floyd needs to die via execution.
For those of you who do not know who Zane Floyd is, don't feel bad. It does not mean you have not been following the news. It simply means you didn't live here a quarter century ago, or if you did you have long since forgotten his name.
He shot up an Albertson's in the late 90's, killing several people.
Yes, the 90's! So long ago that you may not have yet had your first cell. phone, the computer may have ben something only your secretary or paralegal used but it was of seeming no real interest or use to you directly. DVDs were not yet common fare, and VHS still ruled. CD players were still in every new car and were really cool.
Yes, the 90's! back when a fax machine still was state of the art sort-of instant communication and transmission. What was email? What was text messaging? Who knows. It's the 90's.
Clinton was still President.
So, now Zane Floyd needs to die at 45 for the(admittedly horrible crimes) he committed as a completely f*****-up 22-year-old.
I understand that death cases can and should take a long time. I am not recommending they proceed as expeditiously as Florida or Texas. I understand that many mistakes have been made, and that people have been cleared via subsequent DNA analysis, etc. And we need to do every thing reasonably possible to guard against such grievous errors, as obviously they can't be reversed once the sentence is implemented.
But the large majority of death penalty cases, where the sentence has not been carried out after 15, or even 20 years, don't really involve the concept of still following leads to locate exculpatory evidence or witnesses, etc.
In fact, if you have been privy to a lot of this appellate work, so much of it is centered on general legal and policy arguments concerning the death penalty, and it often has little or nothing to do with the continued development of evidence, or attempts to seek exculpatating or mitigating factors, as to the specific inmate at issue.
2:06–Zane Floyd? Now there's a blast from the (distant) past
So, they're calling for him to keep a date with the executioner? When will that date be? Another 20+ years? How many times will new tentative dates be continued out?
I hadn't heard about him in so, so long. I knew he had never been executed, so I just assumed they commuted his sentence to Life or something.
Obviously, I'm wrong.
10:55's comment and the Steese case both demonstrate how f-ed up politics are in this state. Just ridiculous. Voters in this state have no idea what's going on and they have no interest in finding out. They just vote. The last election demonstrates just how badly that went…our court's lost some good judges and some awful candidates got elected. I have no solution…just ranting.
11:11. Of the two sitting judges, who were the District Attorneys in the Steese matter, one lost his seat(which many saw as fitting) but the other received the ultimate reward and promotion–to the Nevada Supreme Court.
If we are to be grateful for small favors and are willing to look really hard for something vaguely positive about that whole warped experience, at least we can tell ourselves that the one who received the wonderful promotion was the only one of the two who made any public acknowledgement, or attempted any apology, for the Steese matter.
Looking elsewhere on the District Court Bench, Bare and Atkin losing their positions was a rank obscenity in my view.
But the issue at work(uninformed and/or ill-advised decisions by the public when voting on judicial races)is nothing new, and has been a problem for decades in Nevada.
I think what is kind of new is simply how many bad results we wound up with in an isolated election– multiple solid incumbents losing their positions in the same election years, compounded by several seemingly inferior candidates being elected.
Well, perhaps not "inferior" as candidates", as they had what it took, politically speaking, to be elected, but some of them don't seem to have the chops to serve on the District Court bBnch–simply lacking in sufficient qualifications and experience.
But sometimes those people can surprise us and perform quite well, so I'll try to keep an open mind(but it can be hard).
I had a hearing last month in front of one of the new judges. I was completely blown away by the inability of this judge to even understand the most basic concepts of law at issue in the hearing. I felt like I was trying to explain things to a law clerk or client.
Here's the thing. There's nothing we can do about this. We just have to adapt. What adjustments do you make when you know you have an incompetent judge? I have a full list, but I'll share a couple here. Incompetent judges mean higher variance, which increases the value of marginal cases and erodes the value of stronger cases. That fact should impact timing of litigation strategy, motion practice and settlement overtures. A good attorney can adjust to incompetent judges and use the situation to more effectively advance a client's interest.
1:04–very true in the sense that the only decisions made by jurors are the ultimate verdicts. The overwhelming majority of cases never see a jury, and thus the overwhelming majority of decisions are made by a judge.
And when bad judges make decisions, like let's say the decision on a major motion, someone still has to win that motion and someone needs to lose it–just like when good judges are deciding.
So, when 1:04 suggests there are things you can do to further increase that 50/50 chance, it is very valid.
For example, there seems to be a plethora of not so great judges in Family Court, but before a bad judge someone will win a custody dispute, and someone will lose it, just like it will be before a good judge.
Some attorneys panic when going before a bad judge, almost assuming that everyone will lose. But, again, someone has to win, so do what you can to increase the odds in your favor.
Now that all said, I have a had a few experiences before newbie judges that were so bad, and such a mess was made of the case, that both sides understandably thought that thy were the losers when the incompetent, confusing judicial rulings were issued.
1:23 PM,
1:04 PM here. You bring up another complicating factor with newbie bad judges. Sometimes they reach the right conclusion through the wrong reasoning. If you have a marginal case and you lose, these kinds of rulings give you a second bite at the apple at extracting some value out of the case in the Supreme Court settlement program. If you are on the "winning" side of one of these you have to really think about whether you can pull off an appellate win by arguing that the faulty reasoning is inconsequential.
Concur – sometimes bad judges can reach the right result, but bad judges can also ruin lives. Forsberg, for instance, has made some outrageous decisions with little to no regard as to the law or the facts of the case. She seems more interested in doing her attorney friends a solid and penalizing attorneys she has a grudge against. If you ever had a contentious case against her, pay the $450 and get out of her department…I wish I had. She's not the only problematic judge in family court, but she's the most obvious.
1.35MM for 20 years of a man's life. Wow.
Cheap
$67,500.00/year? That's above the median income in Nevada for a single person household. Just saying….
4:58, would you give up 20 years of your life, family, travel, friends for a mere $1.35M? There's more than lost wages to compensate.
4:58,
It's not even close to $67,500 per year when you account for the time value of money. With an annualized return of 8%, it is actually $29,500 per year, which comes out to $16.38 an hour for a person working 1800 hours in a year.
Basically, it's the equivalent of a barely above minimum wage job.
And that's just the financial analysis. It doesn't even take into account the value of lost freedom and lost life.
If you going to do an economic analysis, you need to deduct the cost of housing, food and medical.
Just called Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and no one is answering their phones, clerk's office or reception during business hours. I called 4x. This is a court, insanity.
Getting divorced (yay!) and it's amicable, we're looking to file jointly. Looking for a divorce attorney to consult with before going to a mediation. Two kids. No major assets, no debts other than student loans, just want to make sure I've got my bases covered. Any recommendations?
Patricia Warnock. She's smart and, if necessary, a ball buster.
https://www.kainenlawgroup.com/attorneys/edward-kainen/
Ed Kainen is good. I also like Bob Dickerson. He was my family law professor at Boyd.
Ha! Clearly 11:30 and 11:38 missed the part about no major assets. Ed is a great lawyer, but very expensive. Attorneys that can do a joint petition efficiently and competently without charging 6-figures – Ghibaudo, Toti, Aklestad, Rosenblum, Price. There are others.
IMHO (not to start a long-winded discussion but to help the OP): Consistently the best family law attorneys are Marshal Willick, Jim Jimmerson, Bob Dickerson, Ed Kainen, Radford Smith, Michael Warhola and Jennifer Abrams. One level down but still great are Peter James, David Jacks, David Mann, Chris Carr, Donn Prokopius, Ann Kolber, Vincent Mayo, and Kari Hanratty. If you choose off of this list, be very careful as Family Law is full of those who underestimate it and do not understand the extreme deviations from the law and actual practice standards, traditions, and the way it really works down there. I am sure I left a couple off this list but I'm on my cell, sorry.
Ghandi Deeter Blackham are great attorneys.
@12:09…whaaaaaaaat? Haha that list is a joke.
OP here, thank you for the recommendations and analysis! 🙂
11:58–Attorneys who can prepare a joint petition "without charging six figures."
This still leaves them charging five figures such as $10,000 to $99,999.
I assume you meant to say without charging "five figures" meaning the charges would be less than $10,000.—hopefully a great deal less if uncontested.
Now, I realize you meant "six figures" as a figure of speech for emphasis, but when you are trying to help someone please try to give them a somewhat clearer idea of what you think they can expect financially.
Samantha Mentzel.
@12:09p – David Mann? As in the one that moved to Utah after being suspended for six months by NVSC June 2019 for "charging an objectively unreasonable amount of fees for the work performed on behalf of a client"? That's the person you recommend to someone who was asking about a reasonably priced attorney for an uncontested joint petition?
Ghibaudo? Seriously 11:58 jests. Like I am stunned at putting Alex in the same category as Frank Toti or Molly Rosenblum. If you agree to prepare your own documents and agree to pay him in cash so that the IRS never knows you did a deal, I think Alex can maybe navigate the e-file website to file documents. Other than that, Alex should not be on anyone's list of attorneys who to recommend.
For someone who can't prepare documents it's amazing that Ghibaudo managed to get a published opinion out of the supreme court.
The top list of attorney are respected so much on this page for amount of money they will extort from your divorce… the bottom line draft yourself a good decree of divorce by looking into numerous family court cases in Nevada Supreme Court that have them attached to each case on Appeal. After that find an honest attorney who can do it by not trying hard to charge you the ridicules fees. My own experience with both high paid crooks and honest attorneys came to conclusion that those high costs are never justified… Michael Balabon Family attorney is most honest knowledgeable man I every met. He truly cares for his clients.
7:20. That is not a family law case which I was pretty sure was the topic above. Secondarily ask ABG's former clients what he did for them for the money that he took. He belongs nowhere on this list.
7:20 I presume that you are referring to Shapiro v. Welt. The case where after 6 years of litigation the court-appointed arbitrator found that Ghibaudo did not prosecute the case in good faith, failed to answer any discovery, failed to disclose damages pursuant to NRCP 16.1 and failed to pay sanctions. Not exactly what I would call a shining example of good value lawyering. YMMV.
Ghibaudo?
There are some bar discipline matters of record.
I'm sorry….David Mann and Guibaudo? LMAO!!!
5:03,5:20, and 9:39–That is why 12:35, quite diplomatically and without identifying the names he/she strongly disagreed with 12:09 and 11:58 about, let it be known the reality that 12:09 will not find too much support as to some of the "best of" that 12:09 offers.
Yes, some of the suggestions, by 12:09 and 11:58, do not merely appear without much support or merit, but seem so ludicrous to the point that a couple of those names should be on a "worst of…" list.
12:09–Agree and Disagree.
As to your first level, the best of the best, I really like and respect Mike Warhola, and view him as a solid yeoman attorney, but I don't believe you will have a lot of company in listing him as one of the very best half dozen Family Law attorneys. The rest of your "Level I" selections seem pretty accurate.
The problems come with your Level II–those just below "the greats."
Can understand Mayo's inclusion on the list, and perhaps Hanratty as well. Peter James? perhaps you would also have some support for that suggestion as well.
But as for the rest of Your Level II, I submit you will hard-pressed to find many people in the Family Law arena who agree with you that those names are the ones who rate just below your half dozen best of the best you list in Level I.
Yeah…this, but 12:35 said it more politely than I would have.
Why not just eliminate the mask mandate also? Masks aren't going to do anything when people are jam-packed into venues like sardines.
All these nasty comments make me profoundly grateful that I do not practice in family law.