- Quickdraw McLaw
- 74 Comments
- 293 Views
- Carson City Judge James Wilson blocks board of pardons from discussing commutation of all death sentences due to lack of requisite notice. [TNI]
- Matthew Hoffmann talks about “capping.” [Vegas Inc.]
- Scott Scherer says as legal sports betting spreads, Nevada must keep evolving. [Vegas Inc.]
- Another case of contract confusion leads to U-Haul customer’s felony arrest. [KTNV]
- U.S. Supreme Court temporarily keeps Title 42 immigration program in effect. [Nevada Current]
- Ed. As pointed out in today’s comments, the Commission on Judicial Selection has extended the application period for the current openings and announced an additional vacancy in Department 29. Anyone know anything about what Judge David Jones is doing?
Not surprising that Sisocuck would make one last attempt to spit in the face of Nevadans who voted him out. Fortunately, his attempted de facto abolition of the death penalty failed.
Whenever I read an internet comment that twists the name of a public figure into something like "Sisohack" "Sisocuck" or "Obummer" I envision an incel, with simmering rage, typing out his comments in the basement of his elderly mother's home.
I try not to overthink it. But, I imagine a middle aged white dude trying to be funnier than he is.
Either way, I think you can both agree that the person you are envisioning is not bright.
It's not attempted. Nevada does not have any way of carrying out the sentences. Nevada's supply of drugs used in the execution process are either expired or have been returned to the manufacturer under the terms of a settlement agreement. Let's acknowledge reality.
Oh, wait, I forgot. People who use terms like "Sissylack" aren't real good on the whole "acknowledging reality" thing. Don't you have a fake electoral college vote to perform?
@1016……1012 here
I completely disagree.
Just because one isn't as funny as he thinks he is, does not even contemplate his "brightness". But, feel free to envision anyone you like. I make no such assumptions.
That's not true. Once Lombardo takes over he will have control of the department of corrections and can try to proceed with executions. The Nev. Supr. Ct. probably won't let him but he can try. US Supr. Ct. will allow executions to proceed if Lombardo can find a way to get the case to them.
@11:17 Agree. When you are frustrated with stupid politicians but can't do anything about it, people try to make a joke.
The problem is not that the courts are not allowing executions. There are no drugs. The drug manufacturers are not providing drugs. Change the legal method of execution in Nevada and that would not be a problem. But that is not happening. So we are at an impasse.
Try to proceed? There's only one method of execution permissible under statute. That's lethal injection. Nevada has no viable stock of the drugs needed. Nevada has no way of obtaining a supply of the drugs needed. I have a better chance of obtaining an F1 car and driver to compete in the Las Vegas Grand Prix than Nevada does of obtaining what it would take to conduct a legal execution again.
As 11:27 said, the legislature should allow additional methods of execution. But I also have difficulty believing that the drugs aren't available when Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, and other states managed to execute their inmates via lethal injection recently. Somehow they're just not available in Nevada?
I am opposed to the death penalty, but I find it strange some people think lethal injection is somehow more humane than a firing squad. There are serious questions about the paralysis and suffocation that come from lethal injection. It is a drawn out process that can be excruciating for the inmate. We as a society like it because it has the aesthetic of a medical procedure, and therefore feels more humane to us. In contrast, a firing squad brings instant death with no risk of prolonged suffering. But a firing squad is a little too true for us to handle, so we'll delude ourselves with a sterile environment, medical professionals and needles and tell ourselves its humane.
The drugs are available and very easy to procure. There is no requirement that a particular drug be used. You just lie to the drug company about the reason you will use them (you can use a third party vendor to complete the straw man purchase) and then you execute. This is what Texas, Missouri, etc. all do and they have been successful. The reason Nevada can't get the drugs is because the current administration doesn't want Nevada to get the drugs. That will change with Lombardo.
No it wont. Nothing will.
Lombardo is pretty much just another Sisolak.
Lol 9:58 calling OP an incel for no reason. Smh grycna cyka
Drugs
The only drug required is sodium pentothal, commonly used to put down pets and live stock. Painless, quick, and over in seconds. Morphine is euphoric and painless, but a little slower, commonly used to dispatch terminal patients. Propofol is a possible third alternative. Commonly used to sedate patients for things like colonoscopy, but lethal and painless in larger doses, eg. Michael Jackson.
The whole drug cocktail argument is meritless.
None of y’all followed the Scott Dozier or Zane Floyd litigation at all and it shows.
The only current legal method of execution in Nevada is lethal injection. The combination of drugs is irrelevant. Whatever it is, it will be disclosed through the execution protocol.
Nevada cannot procure drugs from another state under the current state of the law because NDOC has to procure from the state approved pharmacy through the official system (and disavow any non-therapeutic use per the purchase contract.)
But, regardless of how the drugs are procured (by lie or repurposed), the drug companies sue so their therapeutic drugs will not be used to kill people. Doesn’t matter if they are successful bc the goal is to run the clock on the drug expiration.
Capital punishment in Nevada is a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Full stop. We have spent millions (MILLIONS!) to not kill anyone.
I have no issue with capital punishment. I have an issue with flushing my tax dollars down the toilet instead of spending it on education or literally anything else.
What you are missing is there is no remedy if the state violates the law, secretly procures sodium pentothal through another avenue, and then executes the inmate. Nothing can be done after the fact. So as long as they keep it quite and move quickly, Lombardo should be able to execute a few people successfully.
Yeah lets break the law to kill a law breaker.
Seriously there is no remedy if we fraudulently in the dark of night without any transparency kill an inmate. Actually lots can be done after the fact for illegally and fraudulently procuring a drug and using it in violation of the contract under which it is purchased (hint: all of the manufacturers have really tight contracts which is how they blocked it in the Floyd and Dozier cases).
You are right– the one inmate who the state pulls off this trick with will have no recourse. But this sorta smacks of ol' Warden Norton and Byron Hadley capping Tommy Williams in the back of the head and thinking that there is nothing that anyone can do about it. I wish you a Happy Holidays.
maybe the name caller isn't stupid; maybe he is just frustrated. This should be a harmless forum for such venting. I could be wrong. Also, not original poster but such namecalling doesn't push any of my trigger tight buttons
4:07, you should wish Lombardo good luck in getting his hands on any sodium thiopental, legally or illegally.
And, it’s comical that you think any US execution happens “quietly” or “quickly.”
I think it is silly how far we go to make the process "humane." There is nothing humane about this. We are putting people to death. We should bring back hanging or the firing squad. If we are too squeamish for that, then maybe we shouldn't be putting people to death at all. Just a thought.
Misspelled Scott's name above, Mr. Bloglord.
Came to see what toxic nonsense was being spewed today. Only two comments in and I'm already not disappointed. Happy Holidays!
The Vegas Inc. link appears to be broken. Capping is rampant. As a plaintiff's lawyer I have encountered it more than once. The Bar doesn't care. That would be my executive summary of what I presume this article says.
What generally is capping?
You have to copy and paste the link for some reason, but it works.
https://vegasinc.lasvegassun.com/business/2022/dec/19/attorney-offers-advice-to-guard-against-illegal-pr/
Capping is when someone (usually a tow truck driver) refers someone at the scene of an accident to an attorney. Seems organic when it happens, but clients don't usually know that the person is being paid for the referral.
I just dealt with a capper (I was evicting him). He claimed that he worked for two PI firms and had submitted compensation from them as part of his lease application. However when we called there, they each denied that he was an employee and said that he had "previously been affiliated" with them. We joked with him that we knew he was a capper and he did not know the term but did acknowledge taking a fee for every case that he referred to each of those firms. Did we blow the whistle to the Bar? Of course.
Capping
I mentioned this earlier this year. Capping is not limited to tow truck drivers. A relative was in minor fender bender, I was called, went to the scene because we didn't know at that time if there were any injuries. Metro had been called. About 15 minutes after calling Metro, a woman drives over, stops and asked if anyone needed or wanted to speak to an attorney. I asked her for a business card. Yep, she worked for a capper that has a business and a web site.
@10:30 "What is capping"
Surprised by you question. Running and capping is covered in the first year ethics class and the MPRE.
I am familiar with some pre-lit PI firms that are shameless about stuff like this. My office has a decent size PI practice, and I get too many random solicitations from unknown "referral sources" for comfort. I often consider the line between needing to report a valid ethical concern vs. clapping back against sketchy competition. Either way… ick.
Does anyone really GAF about this practice?
I mean if you're going to slime yourself, why not go all the way. Capitalism at its best.
I hear all the "ICK" and quotes to the PRs but, in all seriousness, who GAF?
11:57 AM here. The "ick" from me stems from a lot of problems. It's slimy, and the optics for the profession are terrible. It's predatory of people who were recently injured and who are experiencing heightened stress. It's sketchy, obfuscated marketing that gets concerningly close to fee-splitting with nonlawyers. It encourages more people to be on the road unnecessarily to scope out collisions when traditional first responders should handle them… the list goes on, which is why I GAF. To be fair, I also do some PI work and I might have felt differently if I was in a completely different area of law.
1205 here.
As if the optics of profession, as we call it, can be helped by eliminating capping. Lawyers, incorrectly in my book, have a mostly bad rap. What bad rap does exist, is not due to capping or similar practices.
We look down our noses at the PI firms that engage in it and the people that effectuate it. But at the end of the day, it does nothing to preserve the "profession's" reputation or optics, as you say.
None of the reasons you give are really dispositive. But, most of the PRs (including fee splitting) have the effect of exactly Z E R O and simply serve as an attempt to elevate us to other professions with actual ethical dilemmas (medical and accounting) and to serve the power base of the bureaucracy that is the NSB.
Its all a fkg joke. I don't GAF and you shouldn't either. We answer only to God at the end of the day. Accept that and, I assure you, you will sleep better.
This is LITERALLY the definition of "ambulance chasing." I mean I know the profession has bad optics (including the largest personal injury firm in town making a joke against one of his competitors "More lawyers less sleaze" which is pretty sleazy in my book). But this has all of the hallmarks of preying on people in the worse moments
Again, Nobody cares. We all know these attorneys and firms. It's hardly preying upon the public to provide representation when they actually need it. The "sleaze" steps into it when the firms jockey to be first.
No harm, no foul and hardly even a black eye on a already "Rocky faced" profession. The reality is that, rightfully or wrongfully, this profession already has a tarnished reputation writ large. Whining about capping is not helping that fact.
What I am reiterating here is that many of the PRs are nonsense and don't actually protect anyone or the public, all the rules do is step on the toes of the best businessmen and women in an attempt to level the playing field amongst the lesser attorneys and bureaucrats that "govern" the profession.
In other words, the PRs amount to a series of virtue signaling hogwash restrictions that do nothing in practice to "protect" the public and serve only to give the NSB a reason to exist. Once again, a bureaucracy that seeks only to solidify its powerbase (in the form of budget dollars and job security) and ultimately expand its power base (in the form of budget dollars and job security). This is also indicated by the Bar Counsel's targeting of solos and avoiding the large firms. They chase the solos that have fewer resources and are wan to litigate an issue, whereas the Lewis and Rocas of the world will fight and defend themselves, making the staffers and attorneys at the NSB have to actually work for their living.
Gone are the days of a reasonable resource for the actual practitioners and forever present are the days of all expenses paid bar conferences for staffers.
The problem is the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats, not the cappers.
Not to engage in a whataboutism, but when a PI lawyer tells you "capping" is preying upon the public/damaging the public's perception of our profession, that same lawyer is also telling their client not to get treatment on health insurance (but instead go to medical providers that take medical liens). Why do attorneys tell their client to treat on a lien when medical liens invariably cost the client more $ from the settlement than HI subrogation? Doctors sends their unreferred, injured patients to the attorneys/firms that send them clients. This (mostly) unspoken "quid pro quo" is never explained to the client – for obvious reasons – and yet, this practice is not "preying on people in the wors[t] moments" as put by 4:53…
Once again, we can say that we have a sleazy reputation and shrug, or we can do something about it. 8:55 is right– sleazy and we could do something about it.
Your point 6:29 is exactly what is wrong with the profession: "the PRs are nonsense and don't actually protect anyone or the public, all the rules do is step on the toes of the best businessmen and women in an attempt to level the playing field amongst the lesser attorneys and bureaucrats that 'govern' the profession." Your "businessperson" first model is precisely that the NRPC is trying to mitigate against; we are supposed to be client first. We don't let people sign contracts when they are incapacitated and should not let people be solicited at accident scenes. BTW: (as Matt Hoffman points out) its not merely an NRPC; it is actually state statute.
PS: I think the NSB/OBC is completely misguided in its approach to cases and is an overfunded waste of money. However that does not change the fact that capping should be prohibited and enforced.
Sorry 908.
The myth of "client first" is what is clouding your reality and your Kx analogy is not exactly responsive.
But, in humoring you, it is possible to be client first AND be a solid businessman. I have been doing this for a long time (22 years) and have thus far avoided the ire of the OBC. I have been a solo since 02 and have never advertised. I never said businessman first, as in before the client.
I do some PI and don't take part in capping. I don't have to. My practice is 100% referral and always has been. My philosophy is do good work, timely answer inquiries and exercise client control. I vow to always work in their best interests and they agree to do what they are told.
Nonetheless, I could give a shit if some firm wants to toss a tow truck driver a few hundred dollars for passing out a business card or let an experienced paralegal handle most of the case. It hurts no one and there are stopgaps in place, without many of the NRPC's.
9:26– I appreciate that you could give a shit; however your responses are always first-person. The NRPC are not meant to protect you or even to necessarily take your personal feelings about how you personally do business into account. You are very focused on you, which is certainly your right. Maybe the NRPCs are not meant to protect the public against you. But they are meant to protect the public against other people who do not follow your fine and ethical business practices.
That is because I am a badass.
https://nvcourts.gov/aoc/committees_and_commissions/judicial_selection/news/commission_on_judicial_selection_extends_application_deadline
They must read the comments here
WHAT THE HELL… "adds Department 29 to the January 18, 2023 deadline." Did David Jones just retire?
I don't know but I am happy to see we won't get de facto McFarling!
I'm sorry to hear this. I got along with him pretty well both as a practitioner and a judge. He was decisive and knew how to cut to the chase, but also reasonable and fair.
10:21 – What's behind the "de facto McFarling" nickname? I was grateful she was rejected for consideration to the NSC.
As of now McFarling is the only applicant for one of the seats and would back into an appointment.
Dang. Jones is one of our best judges.
Jones is a great judge. It seems like we keep losing the good ones.
Who is conducting the exit interviews of these judges?!
Is it possible that Judge Jones is voting with his feet against the reassignment of cases that is coming up in January? Did he consider the reassignments detrimental to clients, attorneys, and the interests of efficient justice? Did he smell something fishy going on with how the reassignment decisions were being made, e.g., did he see or hear of lobbying by judges to get their hands on certain cases involving certain firms and/or lobbying to dump other cases? Did he see favoritism in assignment and/or removal of cases from certain judges? Inquiring minds want to know.
Or were the rumors of his health issues actually true?
Judge here. Potential reasons people do not apply/run or retire early: Low pay. Having to run for re-election to keep your job. No control over workload. 24 hour search warrant duty. Blog and other criticism. Physical pain from sitting so much in hearings and trial.
I've heard rumblings that Jones' decision was based upon a serious health condition of a family member.
8:42, wow! That is one heck of a list of speculations.
You know, I've read that horrendous Marsy's law (otherwise known as NV Const., Article 1, Sec 8a) multiple times now, and I can't find a specific 15 days' advance notice anywhere. Am I missing something, or is Marsy's law just "whatever the hell the judge thinks"?
NRS 178.4715 provides for 10 days notice
NRS 178.4715 only applies to offender's "discharge, conditional release or escape," commutation of death sentence to LWOP presumably not one of these triggering events.
Marsy's law is supposed to be in Article 1 Section 23 of the Nevada Constitution, but it's not readily available. SJR 17 said
(g) To reasonable notice of all public proceedings,
including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which
the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present
and of all parole or other postconviction release
proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.
(h) To be reasonably heard, upon request, at any public
proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, in any
court involving release or sentencing, and at any parole
proceeding.
Those don't give the 15 days. Ultimate it looks like he relied on NRS 213:
NRS 213.010 State Board of Pardons Commissioners: Members; meetings; notice of meetings to victim.
1. The State Board of Pardons Commissioners consists of the Governor, the justices of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General.
2. Meetings of the Board for the purpose of considering applications for clemency may be held semiannually or oftener, on such dates as may be fixed by the Board.
3. Except as otherwise provided in a policy adopted pursuant to NRS 213.035, the Board shall give written notice at least 15 days before a meeting to each victim of the crimes committed by each person whose application for clemency will be considered at the meeting, if the victim so requests in writing and provides his or her current address. If a current address is not provided, the Board may not be held responsible if the notice is not received by the victim. The victim may submit a written response to the Board at any time before the meeting. All personal information, including, but not limited to, a current or former address, which pertains to a victim and which is received by the Board pursuant to this subsection is confidential.
By definition, isn't the victim in each of the capital cases deceased? How do they get 15 days notice? If Wilson was going to rule that the amount of notice given violated the Constitution as being unreasonable, that would be one thing, but my understanding is that wasn't the basis. It would help if Carson City joined the 21st century with online access to case documents, but they still have to tie up their horses when they get to work.
NRS 213.005 Definitions. As used in NRS 213.005 to 213.100, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. “Board” means the State Board of Pardons Commissioners.
2. “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Board.
3. “Victim” includes:
(a) A person, including a governmental entity, against whom a crime has been committed;
(b) A person who has been injured or killed as a direct result of the commission of a crime; or
(c) A relative of a person described in paragraph (a) or (b). For the purposes of this paragraph, a “relative” of a person includes:
(1) A spouse, parent, grandparent or stepparent;
(2) A natural born child, stepchild or adopted child;
(3) A grandchild, brother, sister, half brother or half sister; or
(4) A parent of a spouse.
Tim Treffinger is going for the other Family Court spot? And i thought it couldn't get worse. This guy has some stones, first with the DA application and now this.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and again.
We have all seen these people land on the bench before. I don't know him. What is he like as a practitioner a person?
I guess you missed his professional discipline and drug conviction.
Stayed suspension link unavailable and drug possession charge is meh.
And neither of those things address my questions. How is he as a practitioner and as a person?
He's a criminal with discipline.
Seems like that is a what and not a how…..
Objection….Non-responsive.
Someone noted that they believed the state applicant pool for judges was dwindling due to the invasive and public nature of the application. (and very lengthy) For reference, the application for Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's vacancy is only six pages, pays $50,000 more and is an eight year appointment. I would suspect USDC will get a much more respectable applicant pool on that alone.
@ 3:51, "how" is he as a practitioner? Nice enough. Polite. Easy enough to work with or against. Did not give any indication of having read applicable statutes or of being even somewhat familiar with the area of law he was practicing in. So, needless to say (for DC), you will probably be referring to him as "your honor" soon enough.
Not if Kurth has anything to say about it.