It was a busy weekend in Carson City as the Legislature tries to get things wrapped up by midnight. [TNI]
Three people were indicted for the murder of a California doctor. [News3LV]
Bail was set at $250,000 for prominent businessman Scott Gragson charged with DUI. [RJ]
Another man was charged with DUI this weekend after Las Vegas’s 50th DUI fatality this year. If you’re going to drink or do drugs, please don’t drive. [Las Vegas Sun; KTNV]
Not Nevada, but a public defender was fired when a judge learned she never passed the bar exam. [ABA Journal]
She had to know that she would be caught eventually, but she could have gotten away with this for years. When I started practicing (pre-internet) it would have been quite easy. Nobody ever checked. Nice way to end your professional life at age 26 though.
His victim was a mother of three girls and supposedly he was on the road for less than a mile from the golf course to his house.
Guest
Anonymous
June 3, 2019 8:23 pm
Concerning the Judge Herndon situation, he apparently has exhibited great remorse and been quite unflinchingly candid about all this to his daughter(who, if memory serves, is a Boyd student and is currently involved, with faculty supervision, of researching and exploring the situation of the wrongfully convicted man who her dad helped put away for 23 years).
But, although I generally hold Judge Herndon in the highest of regard, this is a terrible, perhaps unforgivable situation, whereby he continued with the prosecution, while repressing exculpatory evidence indicating the man's innocence.
So, if Judge Herndon has true and deep remorse and really wants to fully own this, it is not enough if he admits to his daughter that he wrongfully prosecuted a man who he believed at the time to be guilty, as that would be false.
Nor is it sufficient if he admits he continued to prosecute the man after receiving the exculpatory evidence, if he adds in a rationalization that he did not believe the exculpatory evidence.
No. Instead, if he is really being completely honest with his daughter, he needs to tell the complete truth to the young woman, without giving himself any cover on the issue. He needs to admit that he continued with the prosecution, while repressing the exculpatory evidence which suggested factual innocence, and that he in fact believed in the validity of the exculpatory evidence but was under the prosecutorial spell of a win at any cost philosophy.
That would be the only way he can really come clean and own it . No bullshit. No excuses. No rationalization that it was wrong to repress the exculpatory evidence but that he did not really consider it that exculpatory at the time. No. Admit the evidence strongly supported innocence but that he buried it.
With all this being said, the culpability and remorse he's showing likely greatly exceeds that of his co-prosecutor, now also a judge.
Withholding exculpatory evidence is a ethical and due process violation. There are few greater violations for a prosecutor. Neither should be a judge. Both should be removed or step down. But this information has been in the press for years and nothing was ever done about it.
In terms of criminal liability or bar discipline, didn't the statute of limitations run a long time ago? As to civil liability isn't there a statute of limitations bar and a qualified immunity issue as well? It appears that any kind of consequences are a legal impossibility at this point.
The daughter was a clerk for Justice Pickering and became interested in Berry's case through her.
Guest
Anonymous
June 3, 2019 8:31 pm
To:1:23: Ordinarily, what he tells his daughter would be a completely private affair, and it only matters what he represents to the wrongfully convicted man, and those who make inquiry during formal proceedings.
But since the judge has made a very public point that his daughter is involved in this matter, and that he has come completely clean with her about it, I agree that we should not give him so much credit for owning his grievous mistake unless we know what he is fully admitting.
Agreed that he cannot justify or rationalize the prosecution by indicating he thought the defendant was guilt at the time, and that he continued to believe in the guilt after receiving the exculpatory evidence. He should instead fully admit that he concealed the evidence, that it did support innocence, but that he still proceeded with the prosecution.
perhaps someone can remind us just how far he went with hisadmission as the article I found did not make it 100% clear.
RIP attorney well being. My opinion is that Magistrate Koppe is disconnected from the realities of the practice of law. I have only been in front of her 2 times and was fortunately on the right side of her rulings. She was beyond critical of opposing attorneys to the point of insulting them both. I have heard of several other Koppe horror stories. If anyone has positive impressions, please share.
My impression has always been that she is a hardass rules follower. Unfortunately, she tends to enforce rules that are lesser known/followed, and she does it in a way that is not very forgiving. I only did a little in Fed Ct, but I learned quickly that if she was on my case, I would have to double-check everything.
Overall, I didn't love it, but I can't be mad at her for enforcing the rules. Especially when I could be complaining about Family Court's lack of rules.
BUT…! This new thing is not just enforcing the rules. It's creating new rules that might make things more difficult. I don't have any cases in front of her right now, but if I do get one, I'll be wary.
To say she is disconnected from the realities of civil practice may be the understatement of the century. It's rather apparent she has never spent a day in civil practice, in the trenches, actually litigating cases.
This is the danger of appointing criminal practitioners to civil dockets. In the criminal prosecution realm, when the prosecution fails to hand over all evidence in criminal discovery, there are severe constitutional consequences for the prosecution. Not so in civil practice. It's a completely different discovery paradigm.
Our firm practices quite a bit in federal court. We saw the same order come across her dockets in all new cases assigned to her beginning earlier this year. Initially, we thought it was a joke. But joke it is not. It's as if she thinks each case is the lawyer's only case and that these matters can be thoughtfully considered, discussed, met-and-conferred over, and resolved easily. I get a judge's hostility to discovery disputes, since they will see the same sorts of disputes day in and day out. But if it were true that these disputes can be more easily and efficiently resolved, we wouldn't need judges to preside over discovery disputes specifically and civil matters generally.
Judge Koppe, whether she intends to or not, contributes more to a lack of civility and unnecessary stress in the profession than anything the vast majority of opposing attorneys would ever consider inflicting on their brothers an sisters in the civil litigation trenches. The tone and hostility of her written work, from this attorney's perspective, reflects a disdain–if not utter contempt–for civil practice. It's clear she thinks it's beneath her.
If she can't exercise some judicial temperament, discretion, and empathetic understanding for the realities of civil practice, she has no business judging it. When her term as a magistrate judge is up, I hope my fellow civil practitioners will show her the same judicial restraint she routinely shows civil litigators.
Well stated. Koppe (I will not grace her with a title) comes from that narrowing school of benchriders who believe that the cure to a lack of civility between counsel can be curtailed by the Judge being the most uncivil of all. She is nasty, mean, vexatious in requirements and picayune in application. You will get order upon order from her that you read and say "It truly is as if she does not want to resolve this motion; she just wants to (mess) with the parties."
Exactly, 10:15. But worse than that, she goes out of her way to avoid resolving problems, instead hoping that the parties would just resolve the problems so she doesn't have to do work she doesn't like doing. Look, nobody likes babysitting discovery disputes, but that's your job. When you deny motions on hairsplitting grounds and then create unreasonable briefing orders, you just amp up the emotions and frustrations. Easy to do when you're wearing the black robe, I guess.
She had to know that she would be caught eventually, but she could have gotten away with this for years. When I started practicing (pre-internet) it would have been quite easy. Nobody ever checked. Nice way to end your professional life at age 26 though.
Oh Scott. . . see: https://hopeforprisoners.org/about-us/ Seems he may have the chance to get to know the prison system even better now. . .
oh the irony.
What is the irony? It is a great program that Gragson participates in. Frankly there is no joy in this story.
People of his wealth and stature do not serve time in these situations.
His victim was a mother of three girls and supposedly he was on the road for less than a mile from the golf course to his house.
Concerning the Judge Herndon situation, he apparently has exhibited great remorse and been quite unflinchingly candid about all this to his daughter(who, if memory serves, is a Boyd student and is currently involved, with faculty supervision, of researching and exploring the situation of the wrongfully convicted man who her dad helped put away for 23 years).
But, although I generally hold Judge Herndon in the highest of regard, this is a terrible, perhaps unforgivable situation, whereby he continued with the prosecution, while repressing exculpatory evidence indicating the man's innocence.
So, if Judge Herndon has true and deep remorse and really wants to fully own this, it is not enough if he admits to his daughter that he wrongfully prosecuted a man who he believed at the time to be guilty, as that would be false.
Nor is it sufficient if he admits he continued to prosecute the man after receiving the exculpatory evidence, if he adds in a rationalization that he did not believe the exculpatory evidence.
No. Instead, if he is really being completely honest with his daughter, he needs to tell the complete truth to the young woman, without giving himself any cover on the issue. He needs to admit that he continued with the prosecution, while repressing the exculpatory evidence which suggested factual innocence, and that he in fact believed in the validity of the exculpatory evidence but was under the prosecutorial spell of a win at any cost philosophy.
That would be the only way he can really come clean and own it . No bullshit. No excuses. No rationalization that it was wrong to repress the exculpatory evidence but that he did not really consider it that exculpatory at the time. No. Admit the evidence strongly supported innocence but that he buried it.
With all this being said, the culpability and remorse he's showing likely greatly exceeds that of his co-prosecutor, now also a judge.
Withholding exculpatory evidence is a ethical and due process violation. There are few greater violations for a prosecutor. Neither should be a judge. Both should be removed or step down. But this information has been in the press for years and nothing was ever done about it.
In terms of criminal liability or bar discipline, didn't the statute of limitations run a long time ago? As to civil liability isn't there a statute of limitations bar and a qualified immunity issue as well? It appears that any kind of consequences are a legal impossibility at this point.
Is there a SOL to bar discipline?
The daughter was a clerk for Justice Pickering and became interested in Berry's case through her.
To:1:23: Ordinarily, what he tells his daughter would be a completely private affair, and it only matters what he represents to the wrongfully convicted man, and those who make inquiry during formal proceedings.
But since the judge has made a very public point that his daughter is involved in this matter, and that he has come completely clean with her about it, I agree that we should not give him so much credit for owning his grievous mistake unless we know what he is fully admitting.
Agreed that he cannot justify or rationalize the prosecution by indicating he thought the defendant was guilt at the time, and that he continued to believe in the guilt after receiving the exculpatory evidence. He should instead fully admit that he concealed the evidence, that it did support innocence, but that he still proceeded with the prosecution.
perhaps someone can remind us just how far he went with hisadmission as the article I found did not make it 100% clear.
Has this blog already covered this: https://www.compellingdiscovery.com/?p=5525
RIP solo practitioners.
RIP attorney well being. My opinion is that Magistrate Koppe is disconnected from the realities of the practice of law. I have only been in front of her 2 times and was fortunately on the right side of her rulings. She was beyond critical of opposing attorneys to the point of insulting them both. I have heard of several other Koppe horror stories. If anyone has positive impressions, please share.
I've had only one run-in with her, and that was more than enough. She is unfit for the bench.
My impression has always been that she is a hardass rules follower. Unfortunately, she tends to enforce rules that are lesser known/followed, and she does it in a way that is not very forgiving. I only did a little in Fed Ct, but I learned quickly that if she was on my case, I would have to double-check everything.
Overall, I didn't love it, but I can't be mad at her for enforcing the rules. Especially when I could be complaining about Family Court's lack of rules.
BUT…! This new thing is not just enforcing the rules. It's creating new rules that might make things more difficult. I don't have any cases in front of her right now, but if I do get one, I'll be wary.
To say she is disconnected from the realities of civil practice may be the understatement of the century. It's rather apparent she has never spent a day in civil practice, in the trenches, actually litigating cases.
This is the danger of appointing criminal practitioners to civil dockets. In the criminal prosecution realm, when the prosecution fails to hand over all evidence in criminal discovery, there are severe constitutional consequences for the prosecution. Not so in civil practice. It's a completely different discovery paradigm.
Our firm practices quite a bit in federal court. We saw the same order come across her dockets in all new cases assigned to her beginning earlier this year. Initially, we thought it was a joke. But joke it is not. It's as if she thinks each case is the lawyer's only case and that these matters can be thoughtfully considered, discussed, met-and-conferred over, and resolved easily. I get a judge's hostility to discovery disputes, since they will see the same sorts of disputes day in and day out. But if it were true that these disputes can be more easily and efficiently resolved, we wouldn't need judges to preside over discovery disputes specifically and civil matters generally.
Judge Koppe, whether she intends to or not, contributes more to a lack of civility and unnecessary stress in the profession than anything the vast majority of opposing attorneys would ever consider inflicting on their brothers an sisters in the civil litigation trenches. The tone and hostility of her written work, from this attorney's perspective, reflects a disdain–if not utter contempt–for civil practice. It's clear she thinks it's beneath her.
If she can't exercise some judicial temperament, discretion, and empathetic understanding for the realities of civil practice, she has no business judging it. When her term as a magistrate judge is up, I hope my fellow civil practitioners will show her the same judicial restraint she routinely shows civil litigators.
Well stated. Koppe (I will not grace her with a title) comes from that narrowing school of benchriders who believe that the cure to a lack of civility between counsel can be curtailed by the Judge being the most uncivil of all. She is nasty, mean, vexatious in requirements and picayune in application. You will get order upon order from her that you read and say "It truly is as if she does not want to resolve this motion; she just wants to (mess) with the parties."
Exactly, 10:15. But worse than that, she goes out of her way to avoid resolving problems, instead hoping that the parties would just resolve the problems so she doesn't have to do work she doesn't like doing. Look, nobody likes babysitting discovery disputes, but that's your job. When you deny motions on hairsplitting grounds and then create unreasonable briefing orders, you just amp up the emotions and frustrations. Easy to do when you're wearing the black robe, I guess.