The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an unpublished order holding that the state may not not charge a defendant with second-degree murder for a death resulting from driving under the influence. [NVcourts; KTNV; RJ]
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline formally charged Judge Richard Scotti for the incident where he became enraged during voir dire and “threw a book against the wall.” [RJ]
Matt Hoffmann is representing a mother In a wrongful death suit against Clark County for the death of her son due to an out-of-service crosswalk. [RJ]
Saying the Court *held* the state may not charge a defendant with second degree murder is a bit of a stretch, as it implies this is a new precedent. That isn't the case here. Rather, the Court simply applied long-established precedent. The decision itself really isn't a big deal.
What is a big deal (relatively speaking) is the district court below ignoring established precedent. If it is the will of the people to be able to charge some DUIs causing death with second-degree murder, go to the legislature.
And the people freaking out about the Supremes being pro DUI really need to chill. He's still being charged with DUI resulting in death, which is the charge the legislature has created for the offense. Easy peasy.
Then the DA's office needs to chill too. If I'm reading the statutes correctly, the difference between DUI resulting in death and second degree murder is, generally, on the one hand a Category B felony, 2 to 20 years in prison no probation and a fine, and on the other hand a Category A felony, 25 years or life in prison, no probation but with possibility of parole after 10 years, absent any penalty enhancements for qualifying prior convictions.
Vehicular homicide is essentially the DUI equivalent of second-degree murder in terms of penalties, but it requires prior DUI convictions.
#duikills #Nochills Nevada supreme court is wrong.
Guest
Anonymous
September 16, 2020 6:11 pm
The out-of-service sidewalk case (who knew a sidewalk could be out of service?) is a pretty clear discretionary act immunity and failure to discover MTD if you ask me.
The article says the county put a "not in service" wrap over the button activating the warning beacon for the direction the kid was walking, but the one going the other direction still worked. So they had actual notice. Discretionary immunity wouldn't seem to apply, because it was an operational decision, not a policy decision.
But wouldn't the decision of whether/how quickly to fix an activator be a discretionary act on the part of the county based on other competing priorities?
I don't know much about government immunities, but isn't just having the crosswalk painted reasonable? I mean there is still paint on the road denoting where the crosswalk is, right?
If these suits succeed I think the response could be that governments remove all flashing lights or remove the crosswalks entirely.
I'll take a judge with a good legal mind and a quick temper over a very nice and polite legal lightweight every day of the week. If he has a quick temper (I didn't see everything that led up to the outburst), then Scotti is the former. I believe he was under some serious personal stress at the time and just blew a gasket, like any human being is capable of.
Scotti will get a public reprimand and will be required to attend some classes at the Judicial College at his expense. He will not be removed. What he did was out of line but not life shattering.
Guest
Anonymous
September 16, 2020 8:29 pm
That video is uncomfortable to watch. Even defense counsel appeared to try to diffuse the situation by requesting that counsel approach.
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2020 1:54 am
Biglaw has big bonuses. Any word on pay reinstatements in Nevada?
Guest
Anonymous
September 17, 2020 8:29 pm
Here's some math for people who think "now no one will pay for these horrendous crimes":
According to the DA, the 2nd Degree Murder charge was only intended for the most egregious conduct, like people way over the legal limit driving in excess of 100 MPH. Well, every case where that happens can carry at least two charges: DUI with Death and Reckless Driving. On a DUI with death, the maximum penalty is 8-20 and on Reckless it is 2 1/2 years to 6 years. For second degree murder, the penalty is EITHER 10-life or 10-25 years. So, on the second degree murder charge, a defendant in a single-victim DUI case can get 10-25 years, where the defendant charged with reckless driving/DUI can get 10 1/2 to 26 years.
But hey, why let reality get in the way of nice, alarmist story?
Saying the Court *held* the state may not charge a defendant with second degree murder is a bit of a stretch, as it implies this is a new precedent. That isn't the case here. Rather, the Court simply applied long-established precedent. The decision itself really isn't a big deal.
What is a big deal (relatively speaking) is the district court below ignoring established precedent. If it is the will of the people to be able to charge some DUIs causing death with second-degree murder, go to the legislature.
And the people freaking out about the Supremes being pro DUI really need to chill. He's still being charged with DUI resulting in death, which is the charge the legislature has created for the offense. Easy peasy.
That is not what the DA's office is saying.
Then the DA's office needs to chill too. If I'm reading the statutes correctly, the difference between DUI resulting in death and second degree murder is, generally, on the one hand a Category B felony, 2 to 20 years in prison no probation and a fine, and on the other hand a Category A felony, 25 years or life in prison, no probation but with possibility of parole after 10 years, absent any penalty enhancements for qualifying prior convictions.
Vehicular homicide is essentially the DUI equivalent of second-degree murder in terms of penalties, but it requires prior DUI convictions.
#duikills #Nochills Nevada supreme court is wrong.
The out-of-service sidewalk case (who knew a sidewalk could be out of service?) is a pretty clear discretionary act immunity and failure to discover MTD if you ask me.
The article says the county put a "not in service" wrap over the button activating the warning beacon for the direction the kid was walking, but the one going the other direction still worked. So they had actual notice. Discretionary immunity wouldn't seem to apply, because it was an operational decision, not a policy decision.
But wouldn't the decision of whether/how quickly to fix an activator be a discretionary act on the part of the county based on other competing priorities?
They have to act reasonably – but how quickly to fix an activator doesn't appear to advance a policy decision.
I don't know much about government immunities, but isn't just having the crosswalk painted reasonable? I mean there is still paint on the road denoting where the crosswalk is, right?
If these suits succeed I think the response could be that governments remove all flashing lights or remove the crosswalks entirely.
*mid-block crosswalks
Still have a cap unless they are claiming civil rights violation.
What is the punishment for Judge Scotti? I can't see the article.
No punishment yet, the process has just been started.
the punishment is to be known as Richard Scotti until the end of time!
The threads of the last few days show the level of intellect and maturity of Scotti and the Nevada Supreme Court, pretty sad.
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline will throw the book at Scotti.
Mini-Constitution?
I like him. Tells it like it is. No fluff.
A little fluff is a good thing when dealing with a jury pool.
"Dick" Scotti a fluffer?
#fluffylivesmatter
No #fluffnstuff matters
I'll take a judge with a good legal mind and a quick temper over a very nice and polite legal lightweight every day of the week. If he has a quick temper (I didn't see everything that led up to the outburst), then Scotti is the former. I believe he was under some serious personal stress at the time and just blew a gasket, like any human being is capable of.
Scotti is a lightweight with a quick temper.
Scotti will get a public reprimand and will be required to attend some classes at the Judicial College at his expense. He will not be removed. What he did was out of line but not life shattering.
That video is uncomfortable to watch. Even defense counsel appeared to try to diffuse the situation by requesting that counsel approach.
Biglaw has big bonuses. Any word on pay reinstatements in Nevada?
Here's some math for people who think "now no one will pay for these horrendous crimes":
According to the DA, the 2nd Degree Murder charge was only intended for the most egregious conduct, like people way over the legal limit driving in excess of 100 MPH. Well, every case where that happens can carry at least two charges: DUI with Death and Reckless Driving. On a DUI with death, the maximum penalty is 8-20 and on Reckless it is 2 1/2 years to 6 years. For second degree murder, the penalty is EITHER 10-life or 10-25 years. So, on the second degree murder charge, a defendant in a single-victim DUI case can get 10-25 years, where the defendant charged with reckless driving/DUI can get 10 1/2 to 26 years.
But hey, why let reality get in the way of nice, alarmist story?