- Quickdraw McLaw
- 14 Comments
- 214 Views
Welcome back, suckers. Summer is unofficially over and it’s time to get back to the grind for the last four months of the year. We’re a little over two months from an election day where we’ll be electing a president, a few judges, and deciding whether Nevada needs recreational marijuana. Later, we’ll also be doing our annual survey looking at attorney salaries. There should be lots to talk about this fall, but to get you started, check out these items:
- A Harvard Law study calls out Clark County prosecutors for being overzealous on death penalty cases. [I-team LasVegasNow]
- Former Judge Donald Mosley gives a radio interview discussing his opinions on Ballot Question #2 about legalizing recreational marijuana. [KXNT]
- This one is only tangentially related to Vegas, but interesting nonetheless. Reno attorney John D. Moore wrote a “commentary” for the Elko Daily about a case between his client and the city of Elko that recently went through arbitration with a panel that included a Vegas attorney. [Elko Daily]
The study found that 47% of the Clark County capital cases involved prosecutorial misconduct
The anti-capital punishment movement skews data whenever and wherever it can. I don't even look at it anymore. I prefer to focus on innocents suffering and dying as a result of failing to imprison or deport violent offenders. The left is working hard to bring back the skyrocketing crime rates of the past.
Fuck you. Every innocent life matters, whether they are taken by an illegal immigrant or a fucktard prosecutor, asswipe.
Hey I am a conservative and frankly the "death march" of civil liberties as we overimprison, overincarcerate and overpunish. The Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation, ALEC, and the Federalist Society all have issued policy statements regarding the fact that we have become too draconian. This is not a left versus right issue; it is a wrong versus right issue.
God I wish this blog had an Edit button. *as we overimprison, overincarcerate and overpunish should be of concern to everyone..
What 11:24 said…also look at our incarceration numbers. Contrary to the delusions of Donald Trump and 11:14, most of our incarcerated are there for non-violent drug crimes. And let's not even get started on the for-profit prison industry…who oh by the way also lobbies for incarceration of low-level offenders and undocumented folks. Isn't lowering taxes (by not incarcerating non-violent, low-level offenders) a "conservative" value?
Liberal values? Conservative values? Who's wrong? Who's right? I'll pass on all the labels and stereotypical viewpoints of all the righteous, egotistical, arrogant, self appointed thinkers and "know it alls" on this blog! Instead, I'll choose the path of "adaptation" to my surroundings which is the only real measure of success. I'm not wasting my precious time in casting any vote this electoral year on any candidate. I can do more for myself and my family by my own actions and decisions than any elected/appointed political representative. The game in the U.S.A. is flawed, corrupted, and flat broken! Welcome all the replies as to go somewhere else then! I've already got that one taken care of! My retirement will not consist of over taxation, a basket full of prescription meds, and false hopes of social security payments. Ex-pat just here to collect cash like a first generation immigrant. BTW… No one is "innocent" in the good ol' U.S.A !
11:24 says, "Every innocent life matters, whether they are taken by an illegal immigrant or a . . . prosecutor." Hopefully, he/she simply meant to take issue with the chance of a wrongful conviction, not to describe the most horrendous of murderers as "innocent."
Re that Elko thing, it sounds like the matter isn't completely wrapped up yet. Not sure how necessary it was to write an editorial for the paper…but probably complies with rules?
He who lives by the public bitch slap will die by the public bitch.
I thought it said an offer of judgment was accepted. Doesn't that end things.
It says the OOJ was "conditionally accepted." Whatever that means… Loose lips sink ships and all that jazz.
Since Elko is a governmental entity, and is required to abide by the Open Meeting Law, the condition was probably that it go before a vote before the entire City Council. When the Council took up the issue, it sounds like they took the opportunity to try to publicly excoriate the defendant. As if it was the defendant's fault that someone convinced the City Manager, the Mayor, and the council that their case was worth a Dr. Evil-esque 10 million dollars. ::cue pinky to mouth::
10:31. I thought it was accepted pursuant to council approval, which was obtained when they bashed the guy who wrote the op ed piece.