Here’s the first public acknowledgment about the end of Kolesar & Leatham. Anyone have details about who led the exodus and where they are going? [TNI]
The Supreme Court’s decision to require jury trials on misdemeanor battery cases has led to a challenge regarding rural judges who might not be qualified. [TNI]
Speaking of the Supreme Court of Nevada, they just published some new opinions.
They are also being asked to overturn a decision by Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez dismissing attempted murder charges when the District Attorney’s office didn’t have a witness show up. And to make it even better there is video of the exchange between Judge Gonzalez and judicial candidate Jake Villani. [RJ]
The US Supreme Court’s Janus decision merits an encore. [Washington Post]
Trial started at 9:30 am. As of 10:20 am, the prosecution had no witnesses. If it was Stew, for a 9 am trial, he used to ask me to call my witness to the stand at 8:50 am. I understand why Villani felt like he was in an awkward spot but in a criminal trial, the judge acted reasonably.
I miss Stew. I like his daughter. With all due respect, Stew would not have done this.
Guest
Anonymous
February 27, 2020 10:50 pm
I read the article and watched the video.
The judge had no melt down and never raised her voice.
She was, however, her usual firm, no nonsense self. As usual, her bedside manner was not the best, and there was not a great deal of patience demonstrated, and no real acknowledgment of how difficult it can be for the D.A. to secure the prompt appearance of witnesses, particularly when we are dealing with witness of the type in this case(homeless, heroine addict). It is likewise true that she perhaps could have waited a little longer as the D.A. explained that due to some notice issues the witness could have reasonably believed he was to report 30 minutes after his actual scheduled time.
But all that being conceded, this was not some pre-trial court appearance. This was the day of the commencement of a murder trial. This D.A. should have diligently and aggressively done everything well in advance to be assured that this witness would be present for trial. Even if this D.A. claims to be real busy, this was not just some other hearing–but infinitely more important than most other hearings.
So, without being a fan of the judge's demeanor in this case, all in all, I think the judge, by dismissing it, is in the more defensible position than an attorney who failed to secure his witness(es) for a murder trial.
So, her ruling is supportable and is not an abuse of discretion. But perhaps a far more supportable and better ruling would be to wait a little longer, which is all the attorney requested.
But whether she waited longer or not, the D.A. was going to have a hell of a challenge if their star witness is a homeless heroine addict that no one can ever locate.
But yeah, if the witness is a key prosecution witness, get a cop to go find the witness and ensure he/she is there on time. Betsy didn't do anything wrong.
Interesting. Your opinion against a unanimous 6 member NVSC, but interesting.
Guest
Anonymous
February 27, 2020 11:18 pm
Betsey is the best.
Guest
Anonymous
February 27, 2020 11:55 pm
I am shocked at the responses in this thread. The DA was given a 10:00am start time on Friday. If you factor in 30 minutes for people to settle down and opening statements, 10:30 for the first witness is a reasonable estimate. They asked their witness to be at court by 10. On Monday, the start time was changed and they were unable to get ahold of the first witness to inform him based on the issues. Apparently the DA also had a second witness lined up for that time and that witness also had issues. The DA then had other witnesses scheduled for 11:00am but by 10:30am, the Court did not want to wait additional time and dismissed the matter? I don't understand how anyone can think this was appropriate and anyone who thinks that scheduling witnesses is easy for trial has never done one.
The demand/order to rest was almost an hour after the jury was to be seated. So the DA was planning (according to your inside knowledge) to have the main witness/victim, second witness and "other witnesses" all of whom were to be there within 60-90 minutes of the start of trial and yet in almost an HOUR after the trial was to begin could not find a single witness to take the stand? The Court was correct in indicating that this was wholly unacceptable, and the defense did exactly what they should have done when their client's constitutional rights were on the line. The DA could not find ANYONE to put on the stand by 10:20 a.m. for a trial that commenced at 930 am?
Betsey got it wrong. Attempt murder is a serious charge. A continuance or a few hours wait violates constitutional rights? What about the State's rights?
It is a serious charge. A charge so serious that after you have empaneled your jury and know that jeopardy has attached that you have a backup plan ready to go. We all understand that bad things happen and that we need to have a backup plan. Bench trial? This probably does not happen. Civil jury trial? Court probably a little more lenient. But the video says that the prosecution asked for 20 more minutes at 9:30 and then at 10:10 asked for 20 more minutes, was given 5 more minutes and then at 10:20 was asking for 20 more minutes without identifying who was coming and where they were at.
5:02– What amount of violation of constitutional rights would be reasonable? How long should she have made the jury and Defendant wait without any information as to who was going to be called when?
Ask Betsey, she violated my client's constitutional rights without the blink of an eye . Recall it after lunch or Monday. You just let a potential criminal off, Betsey.
Based on the initial report of “a 20 minute delay,” I would have said she was way out of line. But it seems that it was quite a bit longer than that and that the prosecution was just stalling around hoping that the homeless drug addict would appear or be found.
Did you really say: "What about the state's rights?"
The State has no rights. The people have rights. The States only have limitations on their ability to limit or infringe on those rights. Please read the U.S. and Nevada Constitution. Also, the jury members, as people also have rights, such as the right to not have to sit and wait an unreasonable amount of time for the State to bring a case. No witness = no case. Sorry…
Guest
Anonymous
February 28, 2020 12:02 am
I have never done a trial before, but I agree with you.
Guest
Anonymous
February 28, 2020 6:17 pm
That awkward feeling when a sitting judge calls you and asks for money. The judge leads off with how much the judge would like your support and reminds you that the judge was secured the support of the Eglet Firm and that the plaintiff bar is firmly lining up behind the judge.
You think to yourself "You know judge… I did one commercial litigation case in front of you but I am by stock and trade a defense lawyer." These judges understand that waxing poetic about being bought by Eglet rubs some of us wrong don't they?
Looks like Jim Shea and Bart Larsen left K&L and started their own firm.
They did and I heard pretty much all of the transactional guys bailed out.
Where is the Betsey Gonzalez meltdown? I love it.
It is on the Rj website. You cannot play it, at least I could not.
I could. I followed the link and the video played free, but since I don't pay for RJ I could only read the first couple lines of the article.
Refresh, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C before the ad-blocker-blocker stops access. Then Ctrl+V into your favorite word processor. You're welcome.
Trial started at 9:30 am. As of 10:20 am, the prosecution had no witnesses. If it was Stew, for a 9 am trial, he used to ask me to call my witness to the stand at 8:50 am. I understand why Villani felt like he was in an awkward spot but in a criminal trial, the judge acted reasonably.
I'm shocked the RJ would pick up this story…. wonder why????
Stu would have dismissed the case at 9:05 after he sanctioned counsel at 9:03
I miss Stew. I like his daughter. With all due respect, Stew would not have done this.
I read the article and watched the video.
The judge had no melt down and never raised her voice.
She was, however, her usual firm, no nonsense self. As usual, her bedside manner was not the best, and there was not a great deal of patience demonstrated, and no real acknowledgment of how difficult it can be for the D.A. to secure the prompt appearance of witnesses, particularly when we are dealing with witness of the type in this case(homeless, heroine addict). It is likewise true that she perhaps could have waited a little longer as the D.A. explained that due to some notice issues the witness could have reasonably believed he was to report 30 minutes after his actual scheduled time.
But all that being conceded, this was not some pre-trial court appearance. This was the day of the commencement of a murder trial. This D.A. should have diligently and aggressively done everything well in advance to be assured that this witness would be present for trial. Even if this D.A. claims to be real busy, this was not just some other hearing–but infinitely more important than most other hearings.
So, without being a fan of the judge's demeanor in this case, all in all, I think the judge, by dismissing it, is in the more defensible position than an attorney who failed to secure his witness(es) for a murder trial.
So, her ruling is supportable and is not an abuse of discretion. But perhaps a far more supportable and better ruling would be to wait a little longer, which is all the attorney requested.
But whether she waited longer or not, the D.A. was going to have a hell of a challenge if their star witness is a homeless heroine addict that no one can ever locate.
Heroin
But yeah, if the witness is a key prosecution witness, get a cop to go find the witness and ensure he/she is there on time. Betsy didn't do anything wrong.
Are we really just going to look past the following facts:
(1) Sheldon Adelson, our benevolent local oligarch, owns the RJ and I'm told has a strong personal opinion about this judge; and,
(2) Villani is a candidate for the bench.
It seem like there could be some serious political undercurrents in all of this.
Betsey is rank. She is temperamental and lazy. She also plays favorite, but blame Adelson for your problems.
Interesting. Your opinion against a unanimous 6 member NVSC, but interesting.
Betsey is the best.
I am shocked at the responses in this thread. The DA was given a 10:00am start time on Friday. If you factor in 30 minutes for people to settle down and opening statements, 10:30 for the first witness is a reasonable estimate. They asked their witness to be at court by 10. On Monday, the start time was changed and they were unable to get ahold of the first witness to inform him based on the issues. Apparently the DA also had a second witness lined up for that time and that witness also had issues. The DA then had other witnesses scheduled for 11:00am but by 10:30am, the Court did not want to wait additional time and dismissed the matter? I don't understand how anyone can think this was appropriate and anyone who thinks that scheduling witnesses is easy for trial has never done one.
The demand/order to rest was almost an hour after the jury was to be seated. So the DA was planning (according to your inside knowledge) to have the main witness/victim, second witness and "other witnesses" all of whom were to be there within 60-90 minutes of the start of trial and yet in almost an HOUR after the trial was to begin could not find a single witness to take the stand? The Court was correct in indicating that this was wholly unacceptable, and the defense did exactly what they should have done when their client's constitutional rights were on the line. The DA could not find ANYONE to put on the stand by 10:20 a.m. for a trial that commenced at 930 am?
Betsey got it wrong. Attempt murder is a serious charge. A continuance or a few hours wait violates constitutional rights? What about the State's rights?
It is a serious charge. A charge so serious that after you have empaneled your jury and know that jeopardy has attached that you have a backup plan ready to go. We all understand that bad things happen and that we need to have a backup plan. Bench trial? This probably does not happen. Civil jury trial? Court probably a little more lenient. But the video says that the prosecution asked for 20 more minutes at 9:30 and then at 10:10 asked for 20 more minutes, was given 5 more minutes and then at 10:20 was asking for 20 more minutes without identifying who was coming and where they were at.
Betsey defensive on here. Yes, dismiss a serious charge after an hour and a half, seems reasonable to me, not.
5:02– What amount of violation of constitutional rights would be reasonable? How long should she have made the jury and Defendant wait without any information as to who was going to be called when?
Ask Betsey, she violated my client's constitutional rights without the blink of an eye . Recall it after lunch or Monday. You just let a potential criminal off, Betsey.
Based on the initial report of “a 20 minute delay,” I would have said she was way out of line. But it seems that it was quite a bit longer than that and that the prosecution was just stalling around hoping that the homeless drug addict would appear or be found.
This story makes me happy.
Why 10:02? Do explain
Did you really say: "What about the state's rights?"
The State has no rights. The people have rights. The States only have limitations on their ability to limit or infringe on those rights. Please read the U.S. and Nevada Constitution. Also, the jury members, as people also have rights, such as the right to not have to sit and wait an unreasonable amount of time for the State to bring a case. No witness = no case. Sorry…
I have never done a trial before, but I agree with you.
That awkward feeling when a sitting judge calls you and asks for money. The judge leads off with how much the judge would like your support and reminds you that the judge was secured the support of the Eglet Firm and that the plaintiff bar is firmly lining up behind the judge.
You think to yourself "You know judge… I did one commercial litigation case in front of you but I am by stock and trade a defense lawyer." These judges understand that waxing poetic about being bought by Eglet rubs some of us wrong don't they?
And you keep voting for them and giving them money.
And that children is why judges should not be elected and why justice is for sale in Nevada.