- Quickdraw McLaw
- 13 Comments
- 113 Views
On Friday evening, the RJ published an article about District Court Judge Doug Smith getting benchslapped by the Nevada Supreme Court. (For those of you who want to see the actual order, you can download it here.) Basically, a criminal defendant (arrested for possession of narcotics with intent to sell two and half years earlier) got all snippy and said “Thank You” after Judge Smith appointed new counsel for him. Apparently not being one to put up with basic manners, Judge Smith told the Defendant that with an attitude like that, he could sit in jail…for 15 days…WITHOUT BAIL! When the Defendant asked for bail after those 15 days, Judge Smith graciously set bail at $1,000,000.00. (The bond that was originally set back in 2010 was a measly $3,000.00.)
When this issue came before the Nevada Supreme Court, they found that Judge Smith had violated the Nevada Constitution in two ways by denying the Defendant bail for 15 days on a non-capital offense and then setting the bail at an amount which greatly exceeded what he could be expected to pay. The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus finding that Judge Smith manifestly abused his discretion and ordering him to: vacate the order setting bail at $1 million; set the bail at the original amount set by justice court ($3,000.00); and recuse himself from presiding over the matter.
Frankly, and unfortunately, these type of stories are not too shocking lately. As the RJ pointed out, Judge Smith has so far refused to release video of the offensive “thank you,” but they have a request for its release pending. For now, we don’t know how terrible the Defendant’s attitude really was, but it seems unlikely there is any set of circumstances that could justify Judge Smith’s actions. Accordingly, it is nice to see the Supreme Court of Nevada step up and put a district court judge back in line. For that, Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre, and Cherry–we salute you!
Thank you Judge Smith. I have appellate cases and writs that have been in a holding pattern for months, but you force the Supremes to take time out to deal with your ego trip. Did you feel like a big man when you set bail at a million dollars? Did your testicles swell at the chance to punish a low-level coke dealer who didn't show the appropriate level of obsequiousness? Did you get a case of the happies when you thought that you could throw the defendant into jail for three months just because?
April 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM: Good point, though you must admit that power should have some perks.
I had the wonderful opportunity of getting to sit through 3 (yes, 3) days of jury selection in Judge Smith's Court (as a potential juror, prior to law school). Smith was a total asshole to the potential jurors and attorneys.
I had previously gone through jury selection with Judge Villani, who was a consummate professional, and perhaps my expectations were too high for Smith. However, Smith going off the rails like this does not surprise me at all.
Go easy, 9:45
Yeah, I get it about the rights of the accused and all that crap. But I have to imagine that seeing these same loser, waste-of-life, scumbag defendants over and over and over again is fatiguing to even the most sympathetic of judges. Smith just had a very public "I've had it" moment. I don't totally agree with what Smith did; but I understand his motivation.
And by the way, almost nothing good ever comes out the the various treatment and probation and alternative sentencing programs that are available to these habitual repeat offenders. Why not just shut down the whole probation department and use the savings to build a bigger jail? Then everyone could just do straight time for their crimes and the courts would be freed up for more important shit. And maybe, just maybe, the recidivism rate would fall.
Or maybe just decriminalize a lot of these drug crimes and use our resources for the real criminals.
4:05-Have you ever watched Smith in action on his criminal calendar days? Based on past observation, this does not appear to be an "I've had it" moment, but in keeping with the normal course.
@4:05….. so because he has "had it", he gets to deprive people of basic Constitutional rights? If he has "had it" to the point that he can no longer be judicial, here is a hangar for that robe.
4:05,
"seeing these same loser, waste-of-life, scumbag defendants over and over and over again" – isn't that the point of bail? To ensure that the court sees the defendants over and over again? In this case, the defendant appeared every time he was required to. Seems like the current bail amount was enough to compel his attendance. Then, in violation of the Nevada Constitution that says that everyone except capital defendants gets bail, Judge Smith imprisoned him for 15 days without bail and set bail for an absurd $1,000,000 afterwards. Now, I missed that point where judges are permitted to imprison folks with impunity, absent a guilty verdict. Even jailing someone under the contempt power requires a guilty verdict.
If the "thank you" comment was so problematic, Dear Dougie could have simply found him in contempt and stuck with with 25 days. No bail at issue and nothing to worry about.
Done. No Writ to the Supreme Court, no news stories and no blog posts.
Couple of interesting bits of news:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/desai-trial-move-forward-despite-strokes-judge-rules
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/man-shot-weekend-party-home-owned-retired-judge
12:08: The Public Defender who took the writ on the bail question would have also writted up the finding of contempt. It's great to see a lawyer with the gumption to take on these abuses of power.
Here's an earlier case where he sentenced someone harshly for entering an Alford plea instead of "manning up" and admitting he did it:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=24307&csIID=24307&deLinkID=370904&sireDocumentNumber=12-08983
@4:22,
A 2010 grad from UA, no less. Nice to see young attorneys who aren't afraid to let them swing heavy, low, and free.