Leniency to criminals consistently leads to more victimization of innocents. How much longer before we are NYC, where the criminal gets released no matter what, and they hand him a witness list, too? Brilliant.
Take a moment to thank every cop on the street. I couldn't do the job today. No respect. No gratitude. And the punk you risked your life to take down will be out the same day to do more harm. Rinse. Repeat. Thank you, brave police officers.
April 10, 2020 at 9:16 AM – I appreciate your sentiment about the public good in general, but I would like to suggest you consider the minutiae of the issue. I found the court's decision to be balanced to both sides of the issue. I've had a long standing concern with bail that appears to be punitive or designed to do other than ensure the appearance of the defendant. I think in the most egregious cases of violence, the long term potential sentence can be justification for remand without resorting to "danger to the public" arguments, which run the risk of morphing into discretionary detention without a trial. I think any reasonable person will agree that much of the bail process has been essentially punishing most defendants for being poor, complicated by the fact that too many offenses are criminal int he first place and would be better dealt with by being civil offenses. And from a fiscal perspective, an ankle bracelet is far less expensive than incarceration. Ultimately though, the majority of detainees awaiting trial for non-violent crimes are neither a flight risk nor a public safety risk. I only ask that you look for the reasonable middle road on this issue, which I think the court did.
Bail setting involves a consideration of whether the defendant will likely return for his/her appearance AND protection of the public. For example, In a DV case, an OR release with a stay away order may not be sufficient to protect the alleged victim. The Court must have discretion to consider prior offenses of a similar nature and history of involvement with the justice system, the degree of violence or injury, etc.
Do fathers still go to jail if they fail to make child support payments? Asking for a friend. I care more about those innocent fathers who did nothing wrong than some criminal who got caught.
Only if they ignore specific court orders. By the same token, I would like to see this Blog tackle deadbeat dad attorneys. I know of one in particular who files his Affidavit every year saying "Yep I am delinquent on child support and I have no intention of paying it." Bar does nothing about it. DCFS actually gets around to suspending his drivers license but State Bar does not bat an eyelash.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2020 4:39 pm
The entire "Thank a cop because people are punks" mentality is what is so destructive. Good cops and good lawyers should feel that they are on the same side which is protection of constitutional rights and that respect for rights seems common sense. Since the 8th Amendment expressly addresses that "Excessive bail shall not be required," I would consider the ruling not leniency but actually following the Constitution.
I'm not some policy guru, but the following seems to be true:
1. Housing criminals cost money. The state doesn't want to spend that money. The motivation to let people go, including DUI with injury repeat offenders free, is clear.
2. Criminals are poor precisely because they have impulse control problems. Far and few criminals are conscientious citizens who had a one-time baddie, or stole a rolex to feed his starving family. So, saying a symptom of their inability to control themselves is an excuse is wrong: it's no different than saying "defendant couldn't control himself, so set him free." Society cannot default to the lowest denominator.
3. A small number of crooks commit most of the crime. Policies that do not target them cannot work. That's why no bail for repeat offenders and three strikes you are out, were so successful. If the baddies are being put away, you can show leniency to young, dumb or drug addicted non-career criminals. This does the opposite.
4. By decriminalizing "small" crimes, the state enables general criminality. I have witnessed crooks walking into the mall, targeting a store, and just walking out with loads of inventory with impunity. The store clerk told me that happens all the time. They don't even call the cops, because they won't come. Instead, the send the report to corporate who decides whether to report. Is that the society we want to live in? Anyone can just come in and take whatever he wants, any time, and without consequence? (And if the fed up owner finally shoots the shit in the head, no bail and maximum prosecution.)
Just thoughts. I love my brothers and sisters who toil in the criminal justice field.
12:44 – Well articulated and spot on, speaks to the silent majority in this society. 12:04 – Pathetic and ignorant, likely struggles with authority issues.
A lot of what 12:44 says is the kind of meaningless "common sense" someone can only spout with a mind completely unburdened with any of the criminology research going back decades (at least to Merton's work from the late 30's onward) added to a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger overconfidence. No one serious accepts marshmallow test psychobabble anymore.
This is the problem with people thinking they can start from assumptions that "seem" to be true.
To 12:04: please consider that if you only do plaintiff's work, you mainly see the "bad" cops just given the nature of your work. There are lots of good cops out there, you just never see them because they are generally not violating people's civil rights. There's a selection bias.
Don't turn a blind eye to the fact that there is no shortage of work for 12:04 and a ton of additional incidents that are violative but without damages and therefore never brought to litigation. There are a TON of good cops out there but the bad apples ruin the bunch.
Does 2:03 mean to say that 12:44's statements have been disproven by research? Which statements? Whose research? Are highly intelligent individuals with exceptional impulse control robbing malls? Do 80% of criminals commit 80% of the crime? Do freshly arrested criminals never/sometimes/often/uniformly return to crime while waiting to adjudicated on the last one that they were caught committing?
Genuine threats to the community are being processed and released while their rap sheets kept getting longer and longer as the revolving doors of justice just kept turning and turning. Judges can't hand out sentences that would protect the community because there not enough prison space. It is maddening.
12:04 here. 1983 claims are so hard to win that tons of egregious conduct gets a free pass. Also, I get that most cops aren't just beating POC and the poor to pass time on a Wednesday. Most. However, I have never had a case where the bad cop was turned in by one of the 95-99% of "good" cops. I've also never had a "good" cop testify against a bad cop. "Good" cops and prosecutors who give a pass to, ignore, or cover up police brutality and civil rights violations are every bit as culpable.
12:04, you're not making much sense. If 1983 violations are running through a department like the coronavirus, then the department itself is to blame. Training, or lack thereof, is likely the cause, and perhaps a lack of accountability. Violations to the magnitude that you describe quickly raise the ire of the feds, who eventually take over the department until appropriate changes are made. Broad-stroking the issue as you are is narrow minded and pompous, and does nothing to effect any change if there is in fact good cause for such.
While I have generally been anti-Boulder City in the John Hunt case, Stubbs's explanation is flat wrong. Stubbs claimed that the only issue for the evidentiary hearing is how much his fees will be. Here is the Minutes:
The Court DENIES Appellant's Motion for Order of Final Judgment. The Minute Order is stale because the Plaintiff did not submit a timely written Order. The Appellant had the right to submit a written Order while the Respondent's writ was pending. The Court GRANTS Respondent's Counter-Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiis [sic] for Vindictive Prosecution and on First Amendment grounds. Appellant must disclose the proposed exhibits and witnesses that it intends to present at the Evidentiary Hearing by Wednesday March 11, 2020. The Respondent must disclose the proposed exhibits and witnesses that it intends to present at the Evidentiary Hearing by Friday April 10, 2020. The parties may submit Pre-Hearing briefs by Monday April 20, 2020. The Court will conduct an Evidentiary Hearing on Monday, May 4, 2020. The parties may modify these dates by written stipulation, or either party may seek to modify these dates by Motion on Order Shortening Time. The City shall prepare the written Order on this Minute Order. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Elizabeth Vargas, to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. //ev 2/28/20
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2020 4:56 pm
9:16–I don't think that the philosophy in place during the pandemic(exercising better discretion and electing not to arrest or detain on borderline matters) is going to result in an upsurge of violent goons roaming the streets who would otherwise be in jail.
An example of how this discretion is supposed to work is that if someone has a warrant on a failure to appear on a standard traffic matter, that perhaps the officer can exercise their discretion and not take the guy into custody.
I understand the frustration exhibited by 9:16, but I have trouble viewing these matters in absolutes, as there are many shades of gray. I think the vast majority of officers do a fine job and are in law enforcement for the right reasons. But, on the other hand, I don't think we are coddling violent criminals if we recognize the obvious–there are a number of officers who are prone to use excessive force, and there are some who unfairly racially profile.
Let's be real. The jail doesn't want them. If someone isn't posing a risk to society then there's no need to arrest someone right now who has a warrant for failing to appear at their traffic arraignment. Sure, you can characterize that as "leniency to criminals," but let's be real. Protect and Serve. You're doing neither by throwing petty criminals in a tight space where they're much more likely to catch the serious disease that has shut down the friggin world. Take in some context people.
Traffic tickets are a critical source of funding for the state. It's an unjust form of tax farming, complete with debtors prison that ruins lives.
We all know someone who was just barely making do, got a ticket, didn't pay, got arrested on warrant, lost job, lost car, and then, maybe, turned to criminality. Who can blame them? Really, who can? Sadly, they fail to see the enemy is the state, not the citizens of the state.
A lot of bafflement going on. I hope 12:49 is not a lawyer. Actually, Nevada was the first state, long before Gideon, to require appointment of counsel (it was a stage coach robbery). There have been a lot of stumbles in this state after that in providing competent counsel.
Competent counsel? Even in private practice there are relatively few competent attorneys. Take any firm in town and at best a handful of attorneys are competent. A tiny number exceptional. The rest are dead weight going through the motions. Criminals are not entitled to better than what paying clients are entitled to. Arguably less.
5:58 is a NSC justice. There are very competent counsel, thank you for the laugh.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2020 4:59 pm
On a separate matter, any truth to the rumors that Lewis & Roca cut associate salaries and several partners left from their LA and Denver offices?
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2020 5:05 pm
9:43, the way it all seems to me is that Hunt's side may have pushed things a bit too far and did not know to stop when they were ahead. They won on the District Court level. They won on the Supreme Court level.
Then it seems as if the matter was dormant for a while. But then Hunt's attorney eventually moves to have Boulder City pay his attorney fees.
It's understandable he would want to eventually get paid, since it appears the client was not in a position to advance payments(but I could be wrong about that).
But by finally seeking attorney fees, it opens Pandora's Box, and now Boulder gets a second bite at eliminating the "vindictive prosecution" finding.
But the pretext for the District Judge giving Boulder this second bite seems a little tenuous to me–the fact that Hunt's side delayed reducing the minute entry(which included the "vindictive prosecution" finding) to a written order.
I guess that's a lesson for us all to submit very timely proposed orders whenever we prevail on something.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2020 6:11 pm
I just looked at the NV Indy's new judicial races project. It's not an up or down vote like the RJ's, it's a Q&A form. Has anybody looked at the questions? For incumbents, they're asking "Have you ever been reversed by a higher court? How many times? Please share details about each reversal."
Do they really expect every incumbent judge to outline every single reversal? How far back? What about partial reversals where the substance of a judge's order is upheld but maybe an issue on attorney fees go remanded for a tweak? I really can't see sitting judges saying oh yeah, let me take several days out of my life to go over every single time I've been reversed and analyze each reason why. That's gonna either be cut or need to be reined in.
The form alos asks 3 questions about trial experience, but does not distinguish between "real" trials and short trials. In my opinion 20 short trials do not equal 1 real trial.
Agree with 11:11. This emphasizes the fact that any judicial evaluation is worthless if it is priamrily based on info. offered by the judges, even if the info. is supposedly "evaluated" by some panel after it is received.
Evaluations of judges should be conducted by third parties–the attorneys who appear before the judges, and perhaps others as well.
But basing the evaluations on questionnaires filled in by the judges, or judicial candidates, can in no way lead to a useful judicial evaluation.
And, yes, an evaluating agency, if they are worth half a damn, will assemble their own material as to judicial reversals, rather than asking that the judges report on this.
And as 11:11 suggests, the issue of a revrerssal or remand is multi-layered with many shades of gray. There are some judges who I consider pretty solid, who may over the last year or two may have technically had more reversals or remands than judges who are of a lot lesser ability and performance. A lot can be based on what the judge is currently assigned to. If a judge is currently presiding over a few matters where the stakes are really high, there will inevitably be a lot more appellate activity, and thus more reversals an remands on isolated issues, that would ordinarily be the case in such department.
It also doesn't distinguish between bench trials and jury trials, but I personally like where this is heading. Knowing a judge's rate of reversal on appeal is a fairly good proxy for how well the judge tries to follow the law.
The reversal on appeal rate would be but one data point. I disagree that self-reporting by judges doesn't reveal useful info. If there is a robust effort to evaluate and verify what the judge submits, it could reveal a judge playing fast and loose with the truth. Wouldn't that be valuable info?
For example:
"Please discuss any assignments of error that did not result in reversal, including but not limited to 'abuse of discretion.'"
First, the way this is phrased, it implies that they think that "abuse of discretion" means that the judge has done something really bad. It usually doesn't mean that at all. It is a term of art describing the standard on review.
Second, they expect an incumbent judge to list every single time a losing party appeals and every point they complain about, even when the decision is affirmed? Seriously?
Usually I think the Indy does a decent job, but holy crap they need to have some actual lawyers or even (get this) judges on their panel, to make this meaningful.
Any judge or candidate would be crazy to even attempt to answer either of these questionnaires.
It is simply ineffective, for any organization purporting to create a useful judicial evaluation, to focus most of their efforts based on a questionnaire filled in by judges and judicial candidates.
The evaluations should be conducted based on info. received from outside sources–such as attorneys and perhaps others–who have experience before such judge.
When, instead, recommendations of whether to retain a judge, or recommendations of whether a judicial candidate should be supported, are based on an evaluation of Q & A forms filled out by judges and judicial opponents, this leads to a disastrous and useless evaluation.
Why? Because the questions of the judges revolve almost exclusively around how many of their decisions have been over-turned on appeal(which can be incredibly misleading, as it attempts to distill a highly complex, multi-layered issue into a mere numbers game)and the questions for judicial candidates, who are currently practicing attorneys, are even more inherently asinine.
The judicial candidates who are currently attorneys are invariably
asked simplistic nonsense such as how many trials have you had?, and how many of those trials did you win?
One poster suggests that how judges, or judicial candidates, answer these questions could be relevant as to how candid and/or self-aware they are. That may be true to an extent, but it ignores an obvious point. That point is no judicial survey should be primarily or largely based on an evaluation of what the judges and judicial candidates have said about themselves. It should be what do others(such as attorneys, etc.) think of them.
I just read 3:04, an did not necessarily agree with a lot of it. But then I took a glance at 2:48, who lists some of the questions. And yes, they are utterly cringe-worthy.
So, based on that I will dispense with the critique and disagreement I was going to offer in response to 3:04.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2020 6:29 pm
How long does a trial have to last for it to be a real trial? Even one week trials still have jury selection, evidentiary objections, pre-trial litigation, motion work during trial, and courtroom management/witness coordination.
My opinion. Most trials go much longer than needed. Biggest factor:Judges not controlling the presentation of evidence and pace; and attorneys' mind numbing examination of witnesses over small matters, that even cumulatively, don't amount to much.
Leniency to criminals consistently leads to more victimization of innocents. How much longer before we are NYC, where the criminal gets released no matter what, and they hand him a witness list, too? Brilliant.
Take a moment to thank every cop on the street. I couldn't do the job today. No respect. No gratitude. And the punk you risked your life to take down will be out the same day to do more harm. Rinse. Repeat. Thank you, brave police officers.
April 10, 2020 at 9:16 AM – I appreciate your sentiment about the public good in general, but I would like to suggest you consider the minutiae of the issue. I found the court's decision to be balanced to both sides of the issue. I've had a long standing concern with bail that appears to be punitive or designed to do other than ensure the appearance of the defendant. I think in the most egregious cases of violence, the long term potential sentence can be justification for remand without resorting to "danger to the public" arguments, which run the risk of morphing into discretionary detention without a trial. I think any reasonable person will agree that much of the bail process has been essentially punishing most defendants for being poor, complicated by the fact that too many offenses are criminal int he first place and would be better dealt with by being civil offenses. And from a fiscal perspective, an ankle bracelet is far less expensive than incarceration. Ultimately though, the majority of detainees awaiting trial for non-violent crimes are neither a flight risk nor a public safety risk. I only ask that you look for the reasonable middle road on this issue, which I think the court did.
Bail setting involves a consideration of whether the defendant will likely return for his/her appearance AND protection of the public. For example, In a DV case, an OR release with a stay away order may not be sufficient to protect the alleged victim. The Court must have discretion to consider prior offenses of a similar nature and history of involvement with the justice system, the degree of violence or injury, etc.
dlowrey: Under this decision, the court can do all that. What the court can't do is use the defendant's lack of money to lock him/her up.
Do fathers still go to jail if they fail to make child support payments? Asking for a friend. I care more about those innocent fathers who did nothing wrong than some criminal who got caught.
Only if they ignore specific court orders. By the same token, I would like to see this Blog tackle deadbeat dad attorneys. I know of one in particular who files his Affidavit every year saying "Yep I am delinquent on child support and I have no intention of paying it." Bar does nothing about it. DCFS actually gets around to suspending his drivers license but State Bar does not bat an eyelash.
The entire "Thank a cop because people are punks" mentality is what is so destructive. Good cops and good lawyers should feel that they are on the same side which is protection of constitutional rights and that respect for rights seems common sense. Since the 8th Amendment expressly addresses that "Excessive bail shall not be required," I would consider the ruling not leniency but actually following the Constitution.
Define "excessive"
Some folks needs killin'; that's the score.
I do some civil rights work and I have yet to come across a good cop. I am sure there is one out there somewhere, I just haven't come across them yet.
I'm not some policy guru, but the following seems to be true:
1. Housing criminals cost money. The state doesn't want to spend that money. The motivation to let people go, including DUI with injury repeat offenders free, is clear.
2. Criminals are poor precisely because they have impulse control problems. Far and few criminals are conscientious citizens who had a one-time baddie, or stole a rolex to feed his starving family. So, saying a symptom of their inability to control themselves is an excuse is wrong: it's no different than saying "defendant couldn't control himself, so set him free." Society cannot default to the lowest denominator.
3. A small number of crooks commit most of the crime. Policies that do not target them cannot work. That's why no bail for repeat offenders and three strikes you are out, were so successful. If the baddies are being put away, you can show leniency to young, dumb or drug addicted non-career criminals. This does the opposite.
4. By decriminalizing "small" crimes, the state enables general criminality. I have witnessed crooks walking into the mall, targeting a store, and just walking out with loads of inventory with impunity. The store clerk told me that happens all the time. They don't even call the cops, because they won't come. Instead, the send the report to corporate who decides whether to report. Is that the society we want to live in? Anyone can just come in and take whatever he wants, any time, and without consequence? (And if the fed up owner finally shoots the shit in the head, no bail and maximum prosecution.)
Just thoughts. I love my brothers and sisters who toil in the criminal justice field.
at 12:04
An example of fake news bias.
12:44 – Well articulated and spot on, speaks to the silent majority in this society. 12:04 – Pathetic and ignorant, likely struggles with authority issues.
A lot of what 12:44 says is the kind of meaningless "common sense" someone can only spout with a mind completely unburdened with any of the criminology research going back decades (at least to Merton's work from the late 30's onward) added to a healthy dose of Dunning-Kruger overconfidence. No one serious accepts marshmallow test psychobabble anymore.
This is the problem with people thinking they can start from assumptions that "seem" to be true.
To 12:04: please consider that if you only do plaintiff's work, you mainly see the "bad" cops just given the nature of your work. There are lots of good cops out there, you just never see them because they are generally not violating people's civil rights. There's a selection bias.
Don't turn a blind eye to the fact that there is no shortage of work for 12:04 and a ton of additional incidents that are violative but without damages and therefore never brought to litigation. There are a TON of good cops out there but the bad apples ruin the bunch.
Does 2:03 mean to say that 12:44's statements have been disproven by research? Which statements? Whose research? Are highly intelligent individuals with exceptional impulse control robbing malls? Do 80% of criminals commit 80% of the crime? Do freshly arrested criminals never/sometimes/often/uniformly return to crime while waiting to adjudicated on the last one that they were caught committing?
Genuine threats to the community are being processed and released while their rap sheets kept getting longer and longer as the revolving doors of justice just kept turning and turning. Judges can't hand out sentences that would protect the community because there not enough prison space. It is maddening.
12:04 here. 1983 claims are so hard to win that tons of egregious conduct gets a free pass. Also, I get that most cops aren't just beating POC and the poor to pass time on a Wednesday. Most. However, I have never had a case where the bad cop was turned in by one of the 95-99% of "good" cops. I've also never had a "good" cop testify against a bad cop. "Good" cops and prosecutors who give a pass to, ignore, or cover up police brutality and civil rights violations are every bit as culpable.
12:04, you're not making much sense. If 1983 violations are running through a department like the coronavirus, then the department itself is to blame. Training, or lack thereof, is likely the cause, and perhaps a lack of accountability. Violations to the magnitude that you describe quickly raise the ire of the feds, who eventually take over the department until appropriate changes are made. Broad-stroking the issue as you are is narrow minded and pompous, and does nothing to effect any change if there is in fact good cause for such.
lol
While I have generally been anti-Boulder City in the John Hunt case, Stubbs's explanation is flat wrong. Stubbs claimed that the only issue for the evidentiary hearing is how much his fees will be. Here is the Minutes:
The Court DENIES Appellant's Motion for Order of Final Judgment. The Minute Order is stale because the Plaintiff did not submit a timely written Order. The Appellant had the right to submit a written Order while the Respondent's writ was pending. The Court GRANTS Respondent's Counter-Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiis [sic] for Vindictive Prosecution and on First Amendment grounds. Appellant must disclose the proposed exhibits and witnesses that it intends to present at the Evidentiary Hearing by Wednesday March 11, 2020. The Respondent must disclose the proposed exhibits and witnesses that it intends to present at the Evidentiary Hearing by Friday April 10, 2020. The parties may submit Pre-Hearing briefs by Monday April 20, 2020. The Court will conduct an Evidentiary Hearing on Monday, May 4, 2020. The parties may modify these dates by written stipulation, or either party may seek to modify these dates by Motion on Order Shortening Time. The City shall prepare the written Order on this Minute Order. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Elizabeth Vargas, to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. //ev 2/28/20
9:16–I don't think that the philosophy in place during the pandemic(exercising better discretion and electing not to arrest or detain on borderline matters) is going to result in an upsurge of violent goons roaming the streets who would otherwise be in jail.
An example of how this discretion is supposed to work is that if someone has a warrant on a failure to appear on a standard traffic matter, that perhaps the officer can exercise their discretion and not take the guy into custody.
I understand the frustration exhibited by 9:16, but I have trouble viewing these matters in absolutes, as there are many shades of gray. I think the vast majority of officers do a fine job and are in law enforcement for the right reasons. But, on the other hand, I don't think we are coddling violent criminals if we recognize the obvious–there are a number of officers who are prone to use excessive force, and there are some who unfairly racially profile.
Let's be real. The jail doesn't want them. If someone isn't posing a risk to society then there's no need to arrest someone right now who has a warrant for failing to appear at their traffic arraignment. Sure, you can characterize that as "leniency to criminals," but let's be real. Protect and Serve. You're doing neither by throwing petty criminals in a tight space where they're much more likely to catch the serious disease that has shut down the friggin world. Take in some context people.
Unless you believe that locking up criminals is a good thing; and having them permanently removed from society even better.
The idea that we lock up people for failing to appear for traffic tickets is just baffling to me to begin with.
Traffic tickets are a critical source of funding for the state. It's an unjust form of tax farming, complete with debtors prison that ruins lives.
We all know someone who was just barely making do, got a ticket, didn't pay, got arrested on warrant, lost job, lost car, and then, maybe, turned to criminality. Who can blame them? Really, who can? Sadly, they fail to see the enemy is the state, not the citizens of the state.
The idea that tax payers have to pay for an attorney for a criminal to defend himself is just baffling to me to begin with.
Gideon was a hideous decision.
A lot of bafflement going on. I hope 12:49 is not a lawyer. Actually, Nevada was the first state, long before Gideon, to require appointment of counsel (it was a stage coach robbery). There have been a lot of stumbles in this state after that in providing competent counsel.
Competent counsel? Even in private practice there are relatively few competent attorneys. Take any firm in town and at best a handful of attorneys are competent. A tiny number exceptional. The rest are dead weight going through the motions. Criminals are not entitled to better than what paying clients are entitled to. Arguably less.
5:58 is a NSC justice. There are very competent counsel, thank you for the laugh.
On a separate matter, any truth to the rumors that Lewis & Roca cut associate salaries and several partners left from their LA and Denver offices?
9:43, the way it all seems to me is that Hunt's side may have pushed things a bit too far and did not know to stop when they were ahead. They won on the District Court level. They won on the Supreme Court level.
Then it seems as if the matter was dormant for a while. But then Hunt's attorney eventually moves to have Boulder City pay his attorney fees.
It's understandable he would want to eventually get paid, since it appears the client was not in a position to advance payments(but I could be wrong about that).
But by finally seeking attorney fees, it opens Pandora's Box, and now Boulder gets a second bite at eliminating the "vindictive prosecution" finding.
But the pretext for the District Judge giving Boulder this second bite seems a little tenuous to me–the fact that Hunt's side delayed reducing the minute entry(which included the "vindictive prosecution" finding) to a written order.
I guess that's a lesson for us all to submit very timely proposed orders whenever we prevail on something.
I just looked at the NV Indy's new judicial races project. It's not an up or down vote like the RJ's, it's a Q&A form. Has anybody looked at the questions? For incumbents, they're asking "Have you ever been reversed by a higher court? How many times? Please share details about each reversal."
Do they really expect every incumbent judge to outline every single reversal? How far back? What about partial reversals where the substance of a judge's order is upheld but maybe an issue on attorney fees go remanded for a tweak? I really can't see sitting judges saying oh yeah, let me take several days out of my life to go over every single time I've been reversed and analyze each reason why. That's gonna either be cut or need to be reined in.
The form alos asks 3 questions about trial experience, but does not distinguish between "real" trials and short trials. In my opinion 20 short trials do not equal 1 real trial.
Agree with 11:11. This emphasizes the fact that any judicial evaluation is worthless if it is priamrily based on info. offered by the judges, even if the info. is supposedly "evaluated" by some panel after it is received.
Evaluations of judges should be conducted by third parties–the attorneys who appear before the judges, and perhaps others as well.
But basing the evaluations on questionnaires filled in by the judges, or judicial candidates, can in no way lead to a useful judicial evaluation.
And, yes, an evaluating agency, if they are worth half a damn, will assemble their own material as to judicial reversals, rather than asking that the judges report on this.
And as 11:11 suggests, the issue of a revrerssal or remand is multi-layered with many shades of gray. There are some judges who I consider pretty solid, who may over the last year or two may have technically had more reversals or remands than judges who are of a lot lesser ability and performance. A lot can be based on what the judge is currently assigned to. If a judge is currently presiding over a few matters where the stakes are really high, there will inevitably be a lot more appellate activity, and thus more reversals an remands on isolated issues, that would ordinarily be the case in such department.
It also doesn't distinguish between bench trials and jury trials, but I personally like where this is heading. Knowing a judge's rate of reversal on appeal is a fairly good proxy for how well the judge tries to follow the law.
The reversal on appeal rate would be but one data point. I disagree that self-reporting by judges doesn't reveal useful info. If there is a robust effort to evaluate and verify what the judge submits, it could reveal a judge playing fast and loose with the truth. Wouldn't that be valuable info?
It's almost as if the people who put these questions together (including Dean Dan Hamilton) have no experience in the practice of law. Huh.
"Reversal on appeal" presumes a competent appellate court. We don't have one (let alone two) of those.
Geez, some of these questions are cringe-worthy.
For example:
"Please discuss any assignments of error that did not result in reversal, including but not limited to 'abuse of discretion.'"
First, the way this is phrased, it implies that they think that "abuse of discretion" means that the judge has done something really bad. It usually doesn't mean that at all. It is a term of art describing the standard on review.
Second, they expect an incumbent judge to list every single time a losing party appeals and every point they complain about, even when the decision is affirmed? Seriously?
Usually I think the Indy does a decent job, but holy crap they need to have some actual lawyers or even (get this) judges on their panel, to make this meaningful.
Any judge or candidate would be crazy to even attempt to answer either of these questionnaires.
Links to the questionnaires are in this story: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/our-judicial-races-project
It is simply ineffective, for any organization purporting to create a useful judicial evaluation, to focus most of their efforts based on a questionnaire filled in by judges and judicial candidates.
The evaluations should be conducted based on info. received from outside sources–such as attorneys and perhaps others–who have experience before such judge.
When, instead, recommendations of whether to retain a judge, or recommendations of whether a judicial candidate should be supported, are based on an evaluation of Q & A forms filled out by judges and judicial opponents, this leads to a disastrous and useless evaluation.
Why? Because the questions of the judges revolve almost exclusively around how many of their decisions have been over-turned on appeal(which can be incredibly misleading, as it attempts to distill a highly complex, multi-layered issue into a mere numbers game)and the questions for judicial candidates, who are currently practicing attorneys, are even more inherently asinine.
The judicial candidates who are currently attorneys are invariably
asked simplistic nonsense such as how many trials have you had?, and how many of those trials did you win?
One poster suggests that how judges, or judicial candidates, answer these questions could be relevant as to how candid and/or self-aware they are. That may be true to an extent, but it ignores an obvious point. That point is no judicial survey should be primarily or largely based on an evaluation of what the judges and judicial candidates have said about themselves. It should be what do others(such as attorneys, etc.) think of them.
I just read 3:04, an did not necessarily agree with a lot of it. But then I took a glance at 2:48, who lists some of the questions. And yes, they are utterly cringe-worthy.
So, based on that I will dispense with the critique and disagreement I was going to offer in response to 3:04.
How long does a trial have to last for it to be a real trial? Even one week trials still have jury selection, evidentiary objections, pre-trial litigation, motion work during trial, and courtroom management/witness coordination.
I think the "short trial" reference is to the Short Trial Program, which limits the trial length to one day…
My opinion. Most trials go much longer than needed. Biggest factor:Judges not controlling the presentation of evidence and pace; and attorneys' mind numbing examination of witnesses over small matters, that even cumulatively, don't amount to much.
Heather MacDonald is good on this issue.