Interviews of the applicants for the Court of Appeals are being live-streamed on the Nevada Supreme Court’s website. Anyone catching anything interesting?
There will be a public hearing on Thursday regarding the proposed Rules of Appellate Procedure for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. You can read the proposal here. Your thoughts?
We’re at that time of year again where lots of Nevada inmates begin dying in rapid succession. According to intrepid reporter Bethany Barnes, there have been 8 inmate deaths in the last month. [RJ]
After being hit by a car, Judge Linda Bell is still out and not expected to return to the bench until later this month. Wishing her a speedy recovery! [RJ]
Last week a hit and run driver fled the scene of an accident that left a grandfather dead and injured an 18-month old girl. Herb Sachs, who is representing the as-of-yet unidentified driver talked to police last week and told them the driver would turn herself in today (after the Thanksgiving holiday). Understandably, this has caused some consternation for the public who don’t understand attorney/client privilege or why she got to wait until after the holiday to turn herself in. Can some of you criminal attorneys enlighten us on the pros/cons of waiting to turn herself in (other than allowing enough time to pass a blood alcohol level test)? [8NewsNow]
The NSC is all in on the puppet show after which they'll appoint the candidates they picked during the election
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2014 4:42 pm
Waiting to turn herself in until after the holiday will be viewed as callousness at sentencing. Bad move.
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2014 5:18 pm
Re: Sachs and the hit and run driver.
Am I correct in saying that he had no ethical obligation to turn her in, because the crime she allegedly committed was complete? This is akin to a murderer telling their lawyer where the victim is buried and the lawyer having no ethical obligation to divulge, correct?
NRPC 1.6(b) says when a lawyer MAY reveal, while 1.6(c) says a lawyer SHALL reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Here, the act is complete.
Of course, the lawyer still has to be careful not to take any affirmative act to help the client evade law enforcement or destroy evidence. That can still be misprision of felony or accessory after the fact regardless of the ethical rules that prevent the lawyer from actively informing on his client.
Bunch of lawyers ignoring and violating rules of ethics all day long. The way attorneys think they can speak an treat is absolutely disgusting. Is bar counsel doing anything about this???
I don't see the ethical violation. The crime already occurred, and the responsible person elected to turn themselves in (although she doesn't have to). If anything, if the driver elected not to turn herself in, Sachs couldn't turn her in because of the duty of confidentiality.
The attorney announced to the media over a week ago that his client would be surrendering after the Thanksgiving Holiday. This upset Metro., the media, and many members of the public. And it does appear to be an attention-seeking, grandstanding ploy by the attorney.
Rather than arrogantly announcing a week in advance that he is representing the unidentified suspect, and that she will surrender solely on her terms, after the holiday, why not simply keep the matter quiet until after the holiday, and then arrange her surrender?
He would have accomplished the exact same goal(letting her take a week, and then surrender after Thanksgiving), but would not have stuck his thumb in the eye of Metro., etc.
Now, it appears, all he has accomplished is to cast his client in an even more unsympathetic light, which will intensify the media scrutiny over the ensuing months, which will put additional pressure on Metro. to save face and be even more aggressive with the matter than would be the case, and eventually the D.A. will be under greater pressure and scrutiny, as well as the jury–members of the public who may bitterly resent the apparent arrogance and callousness of a suspect who, prior to surrendering, demands first to enjoy the holiday period, while the deceased victim's family, is deprived of their grandfather over the holidays–and forevermore.
So, although the debate appears to be focused on whether or not the attorney has some affirmative obligation of disclosure(probably not, as to a completed, past crime), I'm not sure that should be the main debate. The main points, as I see it, are:(1) Behavior which further erodes the public's almost non-existent remaining faith in the legal system, and;(2)I think the attorney has greatly complicated his client's case and made matters far more difficult for her, for the reasons I mentioned among others.
If the attorney specifically suggested she delay her surrender so incriminating substances in her blood have a chance to metabolize before the police can test it, that's obstruction of justice, ethical rules or not. The problem is proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Obstruction of Justice? What the hell are you talking about? The attorney is under no obligation to collect evidence for the police to use against his client, nor is he required to convince his client to suborn her own interests (i.e. not being in the pokey over Thanksgiving) to the state's.
"Obstruction of Justice? What the hell are you talking about? The attorney is under no obligation to collect evidence for the police to use against his client, nor is he required to convince his client to suborn her own interests (i.e. not being in the pokey over Thanksgiving) to the state's."
Of course he can't turn over evidence, but he still cannot, just like anyone cannot, actively assist a person in destroying evidence or evading detection by the police. Advising a client to delay surrender for the express purpose of allowing BAC to dissipate is advising someone to destroy evidence.
"There's a two hour rule with blood draws on DUI's."
Not if you have a warrant, which the cops would have had about 10 minutes after she turned herself in.
"There's a two hour rule with blood draws on DUI's so she was well past that when she retained Mr. Sachs. Civil guys talking crim is funny."
Dumb crim guys talking crim is funnier. The "2 hour rule" is not an evidence rule or a bar against blood draws after 2 hours. It's just one way to prove the crime of causing death/sbh while intoxicated. That is, if you cause death/sbh via vehicle and you are found to have .08 BAC by a test taken within 2 hours of your driving, you are guilty under the statute even if you in fact drank all the alcohol after the crash. It's just one way to prove the crime. A .08 BAC within 2 hours of the crash provides a conclusive presumption that you were impaired at the time of the accident. But the statute (NRS 484C.430) provides 5 other disjunctive ways to prove impairment, such as being under the influence at the time of the accident or having a .08 BAC at the time of the accident (even if not "impaired" in the colloquial sense). Those disjunctive elements can potentially be proved by a later blood test. So long as there is PC that you were impaired (driving on the shoulder and hitting a pedestrian is probably enough), a warrant can issue, and the evidence will probably be admissible.
I believe I read the defense attorney contacted the media (maybe channel 8 news) telling them defendant would surrender on Monday (turned out to be Tuesday).It never sounded like he was attempting to negotiate her surrender with the authorities. Maybe he tried and that was never publicized. Otherwise, the only purpose for doing so that I can see is a feeble attempt at some personal publicity for the defense attorney. If I'm right, that sure is one sleazeball.
6:18 here. I was responding to the obstruction of justice claim with the two hour comment and no the statute does not let you use a retrograde analysis after two hours, the blood is inadmissible. Typically those individuals get charged with felony reckless resulting in death or SBH. But thanks for quoting NRS 484C.430 which doesn't apply until individual is convicted or pleas condescending civil guy.
Non-lawyer here.
1. Is she really much less hosed for Felony H&R with fatality as she would have been for Felony DUI etc.?
2. Is the jury allowed to make any inference about either the fact that she fled the scene, or that she waited 5 days to surrender?
3. Assuming the prosecutor finds and trots out 10 people who watched her slam back Harvey Wallbangers at Timbers until 3am, can that be in any way used as evidence that she WAS impaired at 10:30 the next morning?
Which judge granted this repeat offender such a low bail?
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2014 6:51 pm
The cynic in me is saying that Judge Bell knows how to properly work up a personal injury case. Hopefully the driver has high policy limits. That said, I hope she recovers quickly.
Family Law CRAM DOWN! Not a "push down" from the NVSC. NVSC won't hear ANYTHING except termination of parental rights. Way to go Nevada! Your children are so unimportant they are not worth the time of the highest court of this state. Brilliant.
The NSC is all in on the puppet show after which they'll appoint the candidates they picked during the election
Waiting to turn herself in until after the holiday will be viewed as callousness at sentencing. Bad move.
Re: Sachs and the hit and run driver.
Am I correct in saying that he had no ethical obligation to turn her in, because the crime she allegedly committed was complete? This is akin to a murderer telling their lawyer where the victim is buried and the lawyer having no ethical obligation to divulge, correct?
NRPC 1.6(b) says when a lawyer MAY reveal, while 1.6(c) says a lawyer SHALL reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Here, the act is complete.
Of course, the lawyer still has to be careful not to take any affirmative act to help the client evade law enforcement or destroy evidence. That can still be misprision of felony or accessory after the fact regardless of the ethical rules that prevent the lawyer from actively informing on his client.
Bunch of lawyers ignoring and violating rules of ethics all day long. The way attorneys think they can speak an treat is absolutely disgusting. Is bar counsel doing anything about this???
I don't see the ethical violation. The crime already occurred, and the responsible person elected to turn themselves in (although she doesn't have to). If anything, if the driver elected not to turn herself in, Sachs couldn't turn her in because of the duty of confidentiality.
The attorney announced to the media over a week ago that his client would be surrendering after the Thanksgiving Holiday. This upset Metro., the media, and many members of the public. And it does appear to be an attention-seeking, grandstanding ploy by the attorney.
Rather than arrogantly announcing a week in advance that he is representing the unidentified suspect, and that she will surrender solely on her terms, after the holiday, why not simply keep the matter quiet until after the holiday, and then arrange her surrender?
He would have accomplished the exact same goal(letting her take a week, and then surrender after Thanksgiving), but would not have stuck his thumb in the eye of Metro., etc.
Now, it appears, all he has accomplished is to cast his client in an even more unsympathetic light, which will intensify the media scrutiny over the ensuing months, which will put additional pressure on Metro. to save face and be even more aggressive with the matter than would be the case, and eventually the D.A. will be under greater pressure and scrutiny, as well as the jury–members of the public who may bitterly resent the apparent arrogance and callousness of a suspect who, prior to surrendering, demands first to enjoy the holiday period, while the deceased victim's family, is deprived of their grandfather over the holidays–and forevermore.
So, although the debate appears to be focused on whether or not the attorney has some affirmative obligation of disclosure(probably not, as to a completed, past crime), I'm not sure that should be the main debate. The main points, as I see it, are:(1) Behavior which further erodes the public's almost non-existent remaining faith in the legal system, and;(2)I think the attorney has greatly complicated his client's case and made matters far more difficult for her, for the reasons I mentioned among others.
I agree completely. Grandstanding by old Herb accomplished nothing except looking sleazy.
Found the original 8NewsNOW Facebook post on the matter. Those people are pissed off: https://www.facebook.com/8NewsNOW/posts/10152908605316303
If the attorney specifically suggested she delay her surrender so incriminating substances in her blood have a chance to metabolize before the police can test it, that's obstruction of justice, ethical rules or not. The problem is proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
29 year old Galina Kilova. It gave her enough time to delete here facebook profile.
Obstruction of Justice? What the hell are you talking about? The attorney is under no obligation to collect evidence for the police to use against his client, nor is he required to convince his client to suborn her own interests (i.e. not being in the pokey over Thanksgiving) to the state's.
There's a two hour rule with blood draws on DUI's so she was well past that when she retained Mr. Sachs. Civil guys talking crim is funny.
Does Herb have a picture of his toupee in the attic? That piece of road kill hasn't aged in 20 years.
"Obstruction of Justice? What the hell are you talking about? The attorney is under no obligation to collect evidence for the police to use against his client, nor is he required to convince his client to suborn her own interests (i.e. not being in the pokey over Thanksgiving) to the state's."
Of course he can't turn over evidence, but he still cannot, just like anyone cannot, actively assist a person in destroying evidence or evading detection by the police. Advising a client to delay surrender for the express purpose of allowing BAC to dissipate is advising someone to destroy evidence.
"There's a two hour rule with blood draws on DUI's."
Not if you have a warrant, which the cops would have had about 10 minutes after she turned herself in.
"There's a two hour rule with blood draws on DUI's so she was well past that when she retained Mr. Sachs. Civil guys talking crim is funny."
Dumb crim guys talking crim is funnier. The "2 hour rule" is not an evidence rule or a bar against blood draws after 2 hours. It's just one way to prove the crime of causing death/sbh while intoxicated. That is, if you cause death/sbh via vehicle and you are found to have .08 BAC by a test taken within 2 hours of your driving, you are guilty under the statute even if you in fact drank all the alcohol after the crash. It's just one way to prove the crime. A .08 BAC within 2 hours of the crash provides a conclusive presumption that you were impaired at the time of the accident. But the statute (NRS 484C.430) provides 5 other disjunctive ways to prove impairment, such as being under the influence at the time of the accident or having a .08 BAC at the time of the accident (even if not "impaired" in the colloquial sense). Those disjunctive elements can potentially be proved by a later blood test. So long as there is PC that you were impaired (driving on the shoulder and hitting a pedestrian is probably enough), a warrant can issue, and the evidence will probably be admissible.
Someone pissed off the prosecutor.
I believe I read the defense attorney contacted the media (maybe channel 8 news) telling them defendant would surrender on Monday (turned out to be Tuesday).It never sounded like he was attempting to negotiate her surrender with the authorities. Maybe he tried and that was never publicized. Otherwise, the only purpose for doing so that I can see is a feeble attempt at some personal publicity for the defense attorney. If I'm right, that sure is one sleazeball.
6:18 here. I was responding to the obstruction of justice claim with the two hour comment and no the statute does not let you use a retrograde analysis after two hours, the blood is inadmissible. Typically those individuals get charged with felony reckless resulting in death or SBH. But thanks for quoting NRS 484C.430 which doesn't apply until individual is convicted or pleas condescending civil guy.
Non-lawyer here.
1. Is she really much less hosed for Felony H&R with fatality as she would have been for Felony DUI etc.?
2. Is the jury allowed to make any inference about either the fact that she fled the scene, or that she waited 5 days to surrender?
3. Assuming the prosecutor finds and trots out 10 people who watched her slam back Harvey Wallbangers at Timbers until 3am, can that be in any way used as evidence that she WAS impaired at 10:30 the next morning?
6:18 – that is all wrong.
Which judge granted this repeat offender such a low bail?
The cynic in me is saying that Judge Bell knows how to properly work up a personal injury case. Hopefully the driver has high policy limits. That said, I hope she recovers quickly.
She could try to recover under her policies.
IS there a head injury or simply soft tissue boo-boos?
And she'll have no problem with wage loss. Se gets paid whether she works or not.
I just hope she is really selective as to which pi attorney she picks, because there are some real losers out there.
Ya I noticed a few on this blog haha
Family Law CRAM DOWN! Not a "push down" from the NVSC. NVSC won't hear ANYTHING except termination of parental rights. Way to go Nevada! Your children are so unimportant they are not worth the time of the highest court of this state. Brilliant.
Or Nevada's children are so important that Nevada changed its constitution so that family law cases could be decided faster.