- Quickdraw McLaw
- 43 Comments
- 158 Views
- There are five applicants seeking to be appointed for a one-year term to Justice Court Department 1. [RJ]
- The ongoing battle of Dawgs v. Crocs. [Daily Camera]
- The Supreme Court issued a few opinions yesterday including an interesting one about using recordings illegally obtained in child custody hearings and whether an attorney, in this case Libo Agwara, can use the Fifth Amendment to quash a records seeking subpoena from the State Bar.
- Victims of Robert Graham are still seeking justice a year later. [News3LV]
The Agwara opinion would seem to have some carryover into the Kirk-Hughes case from a few weeks back.
Is Momot not going to run after appointment? Would love to see him on the bench.
He's past 70, and, apparently, still has a highly thriving, successful practice. Presumably, if he was really interested, he would have sought a judicial post at some point earlier in his career.
So, why would he be interested?
He is a decent human being, who would be great on the bench. That is what we need. The judges in this town suck.
All of them suck?
Yes.
What you lack in detailed analysis, you compensate for with withering and blunt brevity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Interesting case regarding the recording device in the child's backpack, which captured mom alienating the son from dad.
The boy was brought to tears as mom punished him for loving dad as much as mom. Ugly stuff. Alienation, programming, coaching, and disparagement.
Looks the recordings never came in as evidence, but were given to the court appointed expert to review, pursuant to NRS 50.285.
Bottom line from the NSC, and I think it was the right call, was that a child's best interest is more important than the manner in which the recordings were obtained.
page 10 of the opinion.."More concerning, however, would be a scenario in which an illegally obtained recording contains evidence of physical or sexual abuse of a child. Categorically excluding such evidence would clearly against the best interest of the minor and, therefore, in contravention of NRS 125C.0045"
I would not like a published opinion out there that says I "could be prosecuted for a felony." What if the DA's office reads that?
DA wouldn't want the optics of protecting a child abuser.
I assume that the statute of limitations has long since passed, but what was captured in the recording probably makes dad look justified in protecting his child.
9:17 and 9:20 are correct.
The D.A. rarely(or, perhaps, seldom) prosecutes anyone for violation of this statute.
And if for some unknown reason the D.A. now decides he wants to engage in selective enforcement(which is highly unlikely),he will not pursue someone whose motive was to protect a child from abuse. And this is even more true considering there is now a NSC opinion which establishes that the justices affirm the lower court for protecting the children form abuse(even if some of the proof of abuse came form an expert who considered a recording not made in compliance with Nevada Law.)
The decision is so qualified and narrowly drawn that it would be retarded for attorneys to argue that it stands for the premise that if illegally seized evidence is determined to be relevant, that the Family Court Judge can always consider it. For those who latch onto that idea, and who believe that neither the District Court nor NSC will now have any future problem with considering illegally seized evidence, they are advised to actually read the opinion.
The devil is in the details, and let's not forget that the recording was never admitted to evidence, but was received by some expert who had been retained, and was quite concerned with the contents.
We should also consider the purpose and spirit behind this law prohibiting non-consensual recordings of conversations. No one would ever have intended it to apply to situations like this. In fact, any sane legislator, if confronted with such fact pattern, would no doubt conclude that we want and need for evidence of abuse to be accepted and considered by the court.
Also, although seizure of telephonic discussions, without the other side's consent, is illegal, recording someone, without their consent, in a face-to-face conversation is not illegal.
This case involved placing a recorder in the child's back pack. So, how should that be classified? Is that viewed as more analogous to a taped phone conversation, or more like a face-to-face conversation? If the court had taken the approach it was more akin to a face-to-face conversation they need not have dealt with the issue of considering illegally seized info., as it would now not be considered illegal.
I am constantly surprised by the number of attorneys (and even judges) who don't understand Nevada's wiretap/recording laws. To record a phone call, you must have the consent of all parties to the call. To record a face to fact conversation, you must have the consent of one party present (which can be the person recording). It's that simply, yet somehow, these statutes continue to befuddle otherwise intelligent people.
To:3:19–that's true. You are correct.
In Nevada telephonic recordings require the consent of both parties, while recording of direct person-to-person conversations only require the consent of one party.
It is possible to classify this (placing the recorder in the back pack)situation as more analogous to a face-to-face conversation, rather than a telephonic conversation.
Actually, it is really neither, which provides a court wide latitude as to how to classify such matters.
Um, a rote monkey could apply the law, but it does not happen. That is why you appeal.
Depends on whether it is a capuchin monkey, a rhesus monkey, or a spider monkey.
Vicarious consent allows a parent to record on behalf of a child if a good faith basis of concern exists. It looks like the family court judge decided that the father didn't meet the good faith burden. So they didn't come in as evidence, but went to the expert under 50.285.
With these clowns on the bench, I will take a spunky monkey. Jesus, has our bench gotten dumb.
I am going to run. Not this cycle, but soon. I am young and smart. My only worry is putting my spouse through an election. We need some new blood in these judgeship. I keep hoping Denton runs. He is a rarity.
Don't worry about your spouse. Worry about raising money. Worry about draining your bank account. The only thing worse than spending yourself into the poorhouse to win an election is spending yourself into the poor house to lose an election.
You will have no problem getting elected with Harry Reid on your side. Ask Reuben Kihuen, Harry's pet shop boy.
Title lll Wiretap Act is preemptive law and Nevada Supreme Court or Nevada legislators must follow it. This extreme change of law will be void by Nevada legislation or by Feds as it directly violates 18 U.S. Code § 2515 – Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications. Edited tapes and not video or audio recorded interview with child direct violation of Due Process.
Sour grapes? Move on.
Rob Graham's allocution is ABSOLUTELY awful. I have no idea who prepped him or if he decided to go rogue. But WHAT IS HE THINKING??? Shut up!
What did he say??!
Reading the linked article made my blood boil (again). Whatever he gets won't be enough and won't make up for the damage he has done to people who were already hurt to begin with.
Graham called heinous and depraved. Graham sentenced to 16-40 years.
Someone needs to teach Earley how to go off the record and use the white noise because she just broadcasted the entire sidebar
She also apparently needs to learn how to count to 16 because I think the 16-40 sentence she just meant to level came out to substantially more because she apparently did not understand how consecutive and concurrent work.
Please tell me again how here and Cadish are great at criminal law. I need the laugh.
Her
Earley and Cadish are in completely different categories in my book. Not in the same hemisphere, especially when it comes to criminal law. Cadish actually seems to study up and be prepared. This is just another example of how Earley is not all that on top of things. I think a better comparison is Earley with Ellsworth.
I'm not a cop hater by any means, but this type of thing just sickens me. Both the actual shooting and the fact that there are no criminal consequences. I know there are people out there who are willing to excuse cops under any circumstances (as seen by every jury that has issued a verdict). If any of you are out there, I would love to have a conversation so I can see your point of view.
Wholeheartedly agree with you. I know being a police officer has to be trying, but when you are about to take someone's life under the color of law, you need to be damn sure your life or someone else's is under an imminent threat. Merely reaching for one's waistband in no way constitutes justification for taking someone's life. The police must be held to a higher standard.
Daniel Shaver was a dead man as soon as he left his hotel room. He begged for his life. He begged that they not kill him. They were investigating someone supposedly with a rifle who had no rifle on him. He obeyed every command. He indicated when the commands were not understood. The officers stated that they were "not there to be tactical." They sure should have been. Everything one needs to know was inscribed on Brailsford's official police weapon "You're F**ked."
But he reached for his waistband?
Turns out Luis Ayon is not the only person that Kozinski has abused.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/prominent-appeals-court-judge-accused-sexual-harassment.html
People like him do not deserve to be a judge. Power hungry people like that are terrors in their private life.
Prof. Rapoport offered her own up-close-and-stomach-churning-personal experience with the Koz:
https://nancyrapoports.blog/2017/12/09/there-are-likely-several-more-stories-to-come/
Kozinski is apparantly a serial sexual harasser. Another one bites the dust.
Stories about Rob Graham's victims still seeking justice provide false hope that such justice will ever be achieved.
As to the criminal law remedies, many believe the sentence he received is probably sufficient in length, depending how much of it he actually serves.
But most victims are primarily concerned with achieving "justice" as to sufficient reimbursement, and this will never occur.The powers-that-be still appear to be leading these people to believe that they may be made whole, or at least largely compensated.
But that will never happen. The funds and money they seized form Graham can be supplemented somewhat by the State Bar Victim Fund, and since many of Graham's clients were LDS, there has been some discussion the church may get involved with some level of reimbursement to its members.
But no one has told these people the bottom line:when combining all funds and money seized from Graham, and adding to it the State Bar Funds, the church contributions, and contributions from all other sources, all this will never even approach one-fourth the total of what he ripped off.