The 2023 Nevada Judiciary Annual Report was released recently. Have you looked through it yet? See anything interesting? Have you tried the online trial court statistics tool? [NV Courts]
There will be a public hearing on February 7, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. regarding ADKT 0615 to repeal and replace the electronic filing and conversion rules. [NV Courts]
Indy explains: how have discriminatory housing practices shaped Vegas’ Historic Westside? [TNI]
Henderson shelter has faction of staff needed to care for animals. [Nevada Current]
Chief Judge Jerry Wiese labeled the situation around the attack on Judge Holthus as unique and said safety protocols are under review. [8NewsNow; KTNV; Las Vegas Sun]
Former prosecutor, David Stanton, revisits his own violent courtroom attack amid growing safety concerns. [News3LV]
If you want to view the list of candidates who filed for state judicial offices, you can see today’s list here. Meanwhile, here are the Clark County candidates who have filed.
What, if anything, may staff and/or the judge keep on hand to protect themselves in court? I am thinking a roll of quarters wouldn’t be on any list of prohibited items.
The marshal used his handcuffs as brass knuckles and pummeled Superman.
Also, there was a huge concern because Superman was also HIV positive.
Guest
Anonymous
January 5, 2024 10:21 am
P.I. lawyer getting roasted in probate court this morning for trying to allocate settlement funds directly to a beneficiary when the injury was not the cause of death and occurred years prior to death. Also for improperly seeking a set aside. Brutal to watch.
So it was a survival action and not a wrongful death case, meaning that the “beneficiary” (presumably an heir) has no direct claim at all unless he or she qualified as a bystander (rare) or is a spouse with a loss of consortium claim. Seems pretty basic, if I have that right. The wrongful death statute can be a trap for the unwary. What was the set aside issue?
The PI attorney had attempted to allocate enough to the heir that the remainder was below $100k. However, because the entire action is 100% a probate asset, the set aside isn’t available. He now has to do a full administration.
Often times, it makes no sense to open an estate for a wrongful death case. Under the statute the claims of the estate might be minimal, and then you have to deal with things like probate, creditors coming out of the woodwork, etc., none of which is an issue with an heir claim, which is where all the value is. But here, you would have no choice.
This is very incorrect and a common mistake. Any defense counsel worth their salt is going to demand a release from the estate, which means letters must be issued. The probate court must approve the settlement agreement. Not all defense counsel is savvy and will include the estate in a release even where no letters have been issued. Guess what guys? That agreement isn’t binding against the estate because the Plaintiff never had authority to release the claim on behalf of the estate.
On the Plaintiffs side, if a creditor or other interested party to the estate later discovered the wrongful death settlement outside of the estate, they could claw back funds to the estate, and if they were successful, would probably be awarded fees and costs. The interested party could also open an estate, have letters issued and then sue the settled defendant on behalf of the estate. Then you’ve got yourself a whole can of worms.
That said, this happens all the time. Every time a P.I. attorney does it, they are doing it wrong and leaving themselves and their clients exposed.
The only Beneficiary that PI attorney was arguing for was HIMSELF. Trying to get paid ASAP.
Guest
Anonymous
January 5, 2024 10:34 am
Interesting pretty much only incumbents have filed. Is the bloom off of the rose for judicial positions?
Guest
Anonymous
January 5, 2024 10:36 am
I was a law clerk, when my judge was likely going to take someone into custody, he communicated that to the bailiff before court, the bailiff made a note of it on his own calendar and positioned himself to prevent that sort of thing. So, I do wonder whether the judge communicated to the bailiff that she might put that man in custody.
It looked like the marshals or deputies were busy getting some in-custody defendants into or out of the courtroom around when this incident went down. Possibly suggestive of no, they weren’t told in advance, or else they did know but they lost track of the docket.
The Marshall looked incapable of handling this Defendant. They needed two court marshalls to handle this large defendant. Wonder if barricades need to be installed to protect judges from being reached. What if this defendant grabbed the gun from the court marshall. I know that many judges were packing heat to protect themselves.
I sat as a pro tem for MANY years and can attest that the Marshals KNOW intuitively when a D is going into custody and moves into place. The judge, if experienced should have pumped the brakes and delayed starting to render her decision until the marshal was in place.
Absolutely NOT victim blaming. But that is how it should have went down.
Holthus very much communicated that to her Marshal in advance which is why the marshal was positioned where he was at the bar. What marshals do not do is stand immediately behind the defendant when making their allocution because then it appears that custody is a foregone conclusion. In this case, he vaulted the table which is how the marshal did not secure him immediately.
During pronouncement of sentence, yes. During allocution, not very often for an out of custody defendant. This was a freak occurrence. Had anyone suspected that this was the way that this was going to go, he would not have been ooc.
She was literally pronouncing his sentence when he skied over the desk. He should not have been OOC in any event. Multiple time violent offender. NO ROR period.
Guest
Anonymous
January 5, 2024 4:08 pm
Per Channel 8, Judge Holthus has ordered him back to court Monday “by any and all means necessary.” I would think that she would have recused herself.
The recusal issue is actually really interesting. She obviously cannot preside over the new crimes charged as a result of the in-courtroom incident; she’s a witness and a victim. But I’m not so sure she’d be required to recuse on the crime for which she was in the process of sentencing the defendant. If all a defendant needed to do to force a recusal is jump the judge, that would be quite the perverse incentive.
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances…. (2) The judge knows that the judge…is. . . a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” She has an interest in making sure that he never sees the light of day ever again.
Accurate quote of NCJC Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c), but does the mere fact that a defendant attacked the judge during a sentencing on a different proceeding now per se mean the judge has “more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected” by the sentencing which was interrupted? Does the judge now have a legal or other interest in the outcome of that case?
She certainly has more than a de minimis interest in the outcome of the new charges. I’m talking only about completing the sentencing. The existing case and sentence on the guilty (plea?) would be a poor vehicle for “making sure that he never sees the light of day ever again.”
I understand the rule, but I’m trying to find its contours. A defendant mouths off to the judge during sentencing, levels some really personally hurtful (but assume entirely untrue) accusations. Recusal required? If words aren’t enough to trigger recusal under 2.11(A)(2)(c), does that mean overt conduct is? How overt? Is a direct threat enough? Must it progress to an assault or battery?
Balance that against an unruly defendant who engages in bad behavior apparently designed to trigger serial recusals. What then?
She has more than a de minimis interest in seeing that he is locked up for a very long time in the matter that is in front of her. To be clear it was not an attack “during sentencing on a different proceeding.” It is an attack in the very proceeding on which the Court is expected to neutrally and impartially hand down a sentence. She has a personal interest in seeing that he is incarcerated for a very long time in the case in which she is sentencing. No one is apparently at greater risk than she is; no one has a greater interest in making sure that he is immediately locked up than she does as she is supposed to be fairly and impartially determining a sentence.
A defendant mouths off, is unruly, has to be restrained, etc.– the judge is not really a victim in those circumstances. This is beyond those cases. There might be a nuanced line somewhere– perhaps if he jumps over the table but the marshal tackled him immediately is that line in which there is a threat but no actualization of the threat. A case in which a defendant is slamming a judge’s head against a wall and states that his intention is to kill her is not close to being in bounds.
Seems obvious that recusal is necessary. This idea that defendants will “judge shop” via violence towards the bench if she recuses is silly.
The new judge can (and should!) give him the maximum sentence. His behavior during sentencing is a factor the court can consider. So, a new, unbiased, judge gives him the maximum, and he has a host of new charges, and there is 0 incentive for defendants to “judge shop” as, in reality, you are just guaranteeing yourself the maximum sentence plus new charges.
But the fact that any judge will give him the maximum does not alleviate the fact that there is an appearance of bias and she needs to recuse.
I don’t think she needs to or should recuse. It’s the same as when a party sues the judge and then argues that the judge needs to recuse from the original case because the judge has a conflict. A party’s own conduct shouldn’t enable him to force a judge to recuse.
I agree that it’s unlikely criminal defendants are going to start attacking judges for recusal purposes, but there are other things they can do – make death threats, file bogus liens on the judge’s property, etc. – and there should be a bright-line rule telling them that we will never let them get an advantage from that.
“It’s the same as when a party sues the judge and then argues that the judge needs to recuse from the original case because the judge has a conflict.” That literally has no impact on the judge because the Court will summarily reject that action. This case involved a Defendant slamming the judge’s head against a wall.
The second mistake that I think you make is the perception that this Defendant is getting an advantage from his actions. Holthus was presumabily not going to give him the meximum; he has locked in the maximum now. If deterrence is your concern, wait until the sentence to see that there will be no question of deterrence handed down without an appellate issue baked in.
Agreed. And even more so if he’s brought in with a spit mask, strapped to a chair.
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2024 3:32 pm
Anyone else been getting 404 errors from Efile & Serve website? We have been filing and getting the service notifications but when you click on the link to download the file stamped document it throws an artsy 404 code.
The validation step doesn’t work for me. I get “Access Denied, it looks like this email address does not have access to download this document.” Is anyone else having this issue?
So not fixed then. lol. This is going to be a real PITA if the download links are unique to the email address to which a service notice email is sent. That could basically eliminate any ability to use a group email address (like a common court notices address) if the downloader must also be a registered e-filing user using their registered email address that matches the email address tied to the unique download link. Fun…
For funsies, I forwarded a recently served document to another email, and clicked on the link from that inbox. As long as I entered the email address of the service notice, it was fine. No TFA referring back to the original email address has been implemented, so I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t simply punch in “filingAddress@yourfirmemail.com” as your validation.
What, if anything, may staff and/or the judge keep on hand to protect themselves in court? I am thinking a roll of quarters wouldn’t be on any list of prohibited items.
NRS 202.3673 allows judges, prosecutors, and public employees who have concealed carry permits to carry in public buildings.
The marshal used his handcuffs as brass knuckles and pummeled Superman.
Also, there was a huge concern because Superman was also HIV positive.
P.I. lawyer getting roasted in probate court this morning for trying to allocate settlement funds directly to a beneficiary when the injury was not the cause of death and occurred years prior to death. Also for improperly seeking a set aside. Brutal to watch.
This is why PI attorneys hire probate attorneys.
Why *smart* PI attorneys hire probate attorneys.
So it was a survival action and not a wrongful death case, meaning that the “beneficiary” (presumably an heir) has no direct claim at all unless he or she qualified as a bystander (rare) or is a spouse with a loss of consortium claim. Seems pretty basic, if I have that right. The wrongful death statute can be a trap for the unwary. What was the set aside issue?
The PI attorney had attempted to allocate enough to the heir that the remainder was below $100k. However, because the entire action is 100% a probate asset, the set aside isn’t available. He now has to do a full administration.
Often times, it makes no sense to open an estate for a wrongful death case. Under the statute the claims of the estate might be minimal, and then you have to deal with things like probate, creditors coming out of the woodwork, etc., none of which is an issue with an heir claim, which is where all the value is. But here, you would have no choice.
This is very incorrect and a common mistake. Any defense counsel worth their salt is going to demand a release from the estate, which means letters must be issued. The probate court must approve the settlement agreement. Not all defense counsel is savvy and will include the estate in a release even where no letters have been issued. Guess what guys? That agreement isn’t binding against the estate because the Plaintiff never had authority to release the claim on behalf of the estate.
On the Plaintiffs side, if a creditor or other interested party to the estate later discovered the wrongful death settlement outside of the estate, they could claw back funds to the estate, and if they were successful, would probably be awarded fees and costs. The interested party could also open an estate, have letters issued and then sue the settled defendant on behalf of the estate. Then you’ve got yourself a whole can of worms.
That said, this happens all the time. Every time a P.I. attorney does it, they are doing it wrong and leaving themselves and their clients exposed.
The only Beneficiary that PI attorney was arguing for was HIMSELF. Trying to get paid ASAP.
Interesting pretty much only incumbents have filed. Is the bloom off of the rose for judicial positions?
I was a law clerk, when my judge was likely going to take someone into custody, he communicated that to the bailiff before court, the bailiff made a note of it on his own calendar and positioned himself to prevent that sort of thing. So, I do wonder whether the judge communicated to the bailiff that she might put that man in custody.
It looked like the marshals or deputies were busy getting some in-custody defendants into or out of the courtroom around when this incident went down. Possibly suggestive of no, they weren’t told in advance, or else they did know but they lost track of the docket.
I had the same thought – perhaps a breakdown in communication in the courtroom.
The JAVS angle everyone wants to see: https://twitter.com/davidcharns/status/1743443535414829488
The Marshall looked incapable of handling this Defendant. They needed two court marshalls to handle this large defendant. Wonder if barricades need to be installed to protect judges from being reached. What if this defendant grabbed the gun from the court marshall. I know that many judges were packing heat to protect themselves.
Has been interesting watching Cesar just stand there watching his client beat the judge up.
I sat as a pro tem for MANY years and can attest that the Marshals KNOW intuitively when a D is going into custody and moves into place. The judge, if experienced should have pumped the brakes and delayed starting to render her decision until the marshal was in place.
Absolutely NOT victim blaming. But that is how it should have went down.
Holthus very much communicated that to her Marshal in advance which is why the marshal was positioned where he was at the bar. What marshals do not do is stand immediately behind the defendant when making their allocution because then it appears that custody is a foregone conclusion. In this case, he vaulted the table which is how the marshal did not secure him immediately.
I have seen the marshals do EXACTLY this hundreds of times. Stand behind the defendant with handcuffs out of holster and in hand ready to go.
During pronouncement of sentence, yes. During allocution, not very often for an out of custody defendant. This was a freak occurrence. Had anyone suspected that this was the way that this was going to go, he would not have been ooc.
She was literally pronouncing his sentence when he skied over the desk. He should not have been OOC in any event. Multiple time violent offender. NO ROR period.
Per Channel 8, Judge Holthus has ordered him back to court Monday “by any and all means necessary.” I would think that she would have recused herself.
She did (I pulled up the Order) but anticipate that there will be a Senior sitting in or that she will recuse on Monday.
Absolutely not, she will be speaking to him directly. 100.
She can speak to him all that she wants. She cannot pronounce sentence now. Clear violation of the canons.
Judge Weise said during the press conference that is sentencing him herself. There is also now an active case where she is his victim.
How is this not a conflict?
The recusal issue is actually really interesting. She obviously cannot preside over the new crimes charged as a result of the in-courtroom incident; she’s a witness and a victim. But I’m not so sure she’d be required to recuse on the crime for which she was in the process of sentencing the defendant. If all a defendant needed to do to force a recusal is jump the judge, that would be quite the perverse incentive.
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances…. (2) The judge knows that the judge…is. . . a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” She has an interest in making sure that he never sees the light of day ever again.
Accurate quote of NCJC Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c), but does the mere fact that a defendant attacked the judge during a sentencing on a different proceeding now per se mean the judge has “more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected” by the sentencing which was interrupted? Does the judge now have a legal or other interest in the outcome of that case?
She certainly has more than a de minimis interest in the outcome of the new charges. I’m talking only about completing the sentencing. The existing case and sentence on the guilty (plea?) would be a poor vehicle for “making sure that he never sees the light of day ever again.”
I understand the rule, but I’m trying to find its contours. A defendant mouths off to the judge during sentencing, levels some really personally hurtful (but assume entirely untrue) accusations. Recusal required? If words aren’t enough to trigger recusal under 2.11(A)(2)(c), does that mean overt conduct is? How overt? Is a direct threat enough? Must it progress to an assault or battery?
Balance that against an unruly defendant who engages in bad behavior apparently designed to trigger serial recusals. What then?
She has more than a de minimis interest in seeing that he is locked up for a very long time in the matter that is in front of her. To be clear it was not an attack “during sentencing on a different proceeding.” It is an attack in the very proceeding on which the Court is expected to neutrally and impartially hand down a sentence. She has a personal interest in seeing that he is incarcerated for a very long time in the case in which she is sentencing. No one is apparently at greater risk than she is; no one has a greater interest in making sure that he is immediately locked up than she does as she is supposed to be fairly and impartially determining a sentence.
A defendant mouths off, is unruly, has to be restrained, etc.– the judge is not really a victim in those circumstances. This is beyond those cases. There might be a nuanced line somewhere– perhaps if he jumps over the table but the marshal tackled him immediately is that line in which there is a threat but no actualization of the threat. A case in which a defendant is slamming a judge’s head against a wall and states that his intention is to kill her is not close to being in bounds.
Seems obvious that recusal is necessary. This idea that defendants will “judge shop” via violence towards the bench if she recuses is silly.
The new judge can (and should!) give him the maximum sentence. His behavior during sentencing is a factor the court can consider. So, a new, unbiased, judge gives him the maximum, and he has a host of new charges, and there is 0 incentive for defendants to “judge shop” as, in reality, you are just guaranteeing yourself the maximum sentence plus new charges.
But the fact that any judge will give him the maximum does not alleviate the fact that there is an appearance of bias and she needs to recuse.
I don’t think she needs to or should recuse. It’s the same as when a party sues the judge and then argues that the judge needs to recuse from the original case because the judge has a conflict. A party’s own conduct shouldn’t enable him to force a judge to recuse.
I agree that it’s unlikely criminal defendants are going to start attacking judges for recusal purposes, but there are other things they can do – make death threats, file bogus liens on the judge’s property, etc. – and there should be a bright-line rule telling them that we will never let them get an advantage from that.
“It’s the same as when a party sues the judge and then argues that the judge needs to recuse from the original case because the judge has a conflict.” That literally has no impact on the judge because the Court will summarily reject that action. This case involved a Defendant slamming the judge’s head against a wall.
The second mistake that I think you make is the perception that this Defendant is getting an advantage from his actions. Holthus was presumabily not going to give him the meximum; he has locked in the maximum now. If deterrence is your concern, wait until the sentence to see that there will be no question of deterrence handed down without an appellate issue baked in.
Agreed. And even more so if he’s brought in with a spit mask, strapped to a chair.
Anyone else been getting 404 errors from Efile & Serve website? We have been filing and getting the service notifications but when you click on the link to download the file stamped document it throws an artsy 404 code.
There was a notice email that went out Jan. 5 from the vendor, Tyler Technologies, saying they are aware of the problem and trying to fix it.
PS. Love the new edit function.
And another one yesterday saying the issue was resolved, but now with a new authentication step to download copies.
The validation step doesn’t work for me. I get “Access Denied, it looks like this email address does not have access to download this document.” Is anyone else having this issue?
Same here.
So not fixed then. lol. This is going to be a real PITA if the download links are unique to the email address to which a service notice email is sent. That could basically eliminate any ability to use a group email address (like a common court notices address) if the downloader must also be a registered e-filing user using their registered email address that matches the email address tied to the unique download link. Fun…
For funsies, I forwarded a recently served document to another email, and clicked on the link from that inbox. As long as I entered the email address of the service notice, it was fine. No TFA referring back to the original email address has been implemented, so I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t simply punch in “filingAddress@yourfirmemail.com” as your validation.
The power of the Thwack is great indeed.
What got Thwacked?