Reckless

  • Law

  • Nevada Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty will not seek reelection next year. [TNI
  • (Former) Raiders player Henry Ruggs III was going 156 mph in the moments before his car struck another killing the young woman driving it and her dog. [8NewsNow; TMZ]
  • President Biden nominated Judge Christina Silva and UNLV law professor Anne Traum to fill vacancies on the federal district court bench. [RJ]
  • Outgoing CCSD Superintendent Jara gives out nearly $400,000 in raises. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • The Clark County Commission approved updated district boundary map. [Nevada Current]
43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:07 pm

OMG, she literally burned to death in her car! 156 MPH?! Well, good news is he didn't send any insensitive emails, so his career is safe. Let's go, Raiders!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

He's already been released by the Raiders and booked in jail. Good riddance.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This makes zero sense. The political trolls here have ruined this blog.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I don't care for the Raiders organization, but I was pleasantly surprised that they immediately released Ruggs. I hope the woman's family cleans Ruggs assets out completely and that Ruggs goes to prison for many years. Also, we are far too tolerant of drunk drivers. People should lose their license for at least a year on the first DUI and on the second DUI permanent revocation.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I think it'll be in line with Gragson…around 8-20 years. Chesnoff is making a killing sending people to prison, his results are on par with a PD. So overrated.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Not a criminal attorney. I know nothing about Chesnoff other than what I read here and in the papers. Assuming this statement is true, "his results are on par with a PD. So overrated," (I have no idea), how does Chesnoff pull this off? I say this with admiration and to understand his approach to building his brand and marketing. Because he is always the guy for these cases.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

His DUI death results are on par with a PD. They are cases where the defendant is simply NOT going to avoid prison, and is likely to get a significant prison sentence. As a former criminal defense attorney, I think Chesnoff likely sells a beautiful picture of the case to the client rather than telling them the ugly part up front. Who wants to hear, "you ARE going to prison, possibly for over a decade. Please give me X amount of money." He sells the dream to desperate defendants and then doesn't achieve results that warrant the money spent.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Give certain judges x payoff . and you will get the results you want.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I thought Gragson had 3 victims that died and one that was seriously injured? If that is the case, he was looking at 2-80 years? 8-20 doesn't seem too bad. If Ruggs walks away from this with 2-5 or 3-8 sentence (assuming the facts as presented by the media are true) that that would be a huge win for Chesnoff.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Payoff? You mean campaign contributions like a lot of us give to judicial candidates? Chesnoff doesn't just get good results from judges, he also gets them from DAs. That's because he makes them work hard and he's gotten some great wins. DAs don't like to work hard and they don't like to lose.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Gragson killed one person as well, and the judge slammed him with multiple more years than Chesnoff was arguing for.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Gragson got maxed, he literally could have pleaded guilty on day one, went to sentencing 45 days later with a PD, gotten the same result Chesnoff did, and probably saved at least $100,000–maybe up $250,000. Where's the juice there when the client got maxed? Chesnoff is a joke when it comes to these cases and he's a great attorney overall–but NOT regarding DUI deaths. He's almost a liability because wealth is not looked upon fondly in these types of cases–like you have six figures for Chesnoff but you didn't have $20 for an Uber? It makes the defendant look like a huge a-hole.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Doesn't sound like he's got much to work with here.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Chesnoff holds the client's hand and makes the client feel better about himself (or herself). The sentence may very well be similar to what the client might have gotten with a PD; but the process with Chesnoff is more elegant and the client is given more information. On the whole. Perhaps Gragson or Ruggs would get the same sentence with a PD; but they'll feel more informed, every i will be dotted, every t will be crossed, and no detail will be missed which might result in less overall time. PDs don't have the time or resources to handhold their clients and inspect every minute opportunity for a lesser duration in prison.

Also, that high school baller did better with Chesnoff than he would have with a PD. By the time that thing was worked out, Chesnoff had everyone thinking that the driver was the victim.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

When Stefany Miley's ass was in the jackpot, she speed-dialed Chesnoff. She knew.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@11:45, I don't doubt that (that SHOULD be a benefit of ANY private attorney, and a lot of attorneys are better hand-holders for less money) but I also don't doubt that he sells the DUI death clients false hope at the onset.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 7:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

When I was clerking, an attorney from Chesnoff's firm appeared to argue for a defendant's pretrial release. The quality of his argument and presentation was definitely better than most private attorneys and was on par with the FPD's office (which, in my experience, is routinely well-prepared)

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 7:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Ugh, I am not doubting Chesnoff as an ATTORNEY, I am doubting his ability to best anyone (even PD's) regarding SENTENCES for DUI death ONLY. This is not a referendum on Chesnoff in general–ONLY in regard to the sentences for one very difficult type of case where probation is NOT an option. He's no better than any other attorney.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 8:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

These DUI cases rely heavily on proper police procedure. A good DUI lawyer, public or private, is able to effectively evaluate the details within the report and challenge appropriately. Chesnoff is likely very good at that. It's a technical arrest and prosecution that requires technical expertise to overturn.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 9:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Wow, some people sure do assume to know plenty about other lawyers' attorney-client conversations.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 11:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Private defense attorneys= bleed 'em and plead 'em. The PD here does ok work. Most don't try cases they just get some good deals now and then. Most DA's don't try cases either–they plead 'em.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:09 pm

Question for the group – I hear people check in on Bluejeans with "Page X, Case Y"

Where the heck do you find what pages cases are on? Are they online or only if you're in person?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 4:37 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Funny you mention this,, am sitting on a hearing that looks like a giant calendar and looking around for the same.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 5:58 pm

Anne Traum will make a great federal DJ. She has both civil and criminal experience, most of it in federal court.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Don't know her. Been in front of Silva three or four times and thought she was well prepared and gave good rulings. A shame Togliatti didn't get re-nominated.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 7:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Prof. Traum is wicked smart and she won't suffer fools.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 7:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Always thought she looks a little like Quagmire. giggity giggity

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 8:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I externed at the USAO when Silva was there and I really thought she was great. I've never been around her as a judge. But she was very welcoming and friendly and helpful when I was a bumbling idiot that knew nothing about anything. I'm happy she got this. I was hoping Russ Marsh would get the other one, because he was also very welcoming and helpful.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 9:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Law Professors generally make lousy federal judges. They have little to no real world experience and are not understanding that when attorneys are busy practicing law they make mistakes. They have no sympathy for those in private practice where a lawyer has to make a living, pay overhead and service clients.They also dump on the government for the most trivial mistakes. Not a fan of promoting someone from academia. Furthermore, doesn't diversity and inclusion include qualified males in the mix.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 9:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Now now 2:45– Don't be so skeptical. Traum can fall back on her extensive law firm experience. Wait….she has never worked for a law firm or in private practice?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 10:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agree on Silva. I've appeared before her a handful of times. She's prepared and smart. I also agree with the criticisms of Traum. I don't know her, but I can't imagine an academic making a stellar judge.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 11:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Did bankruptcy work and Professor Markel was the hardest bankruptcy judge. He was a Boyd law prof who became a bk judge. He used to sanction the volume practitioners who did consumer debtor bankruptcies. If you did those cases picture postcard perfect, you could never charge enough.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 11:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Dopes at 2:45 and 2:56. Maybe check the CV before you start blasting the ill-informed, and/or lame and/or unoriginal canned responses about academics. It literally took 30 seconds to find Traum's CV.

https://law.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/faculty/resumes/Traum%20CV%20Mar%202021.pdf

2:45 – she has more than a decade of non-academic experience. It's not a long time but its not irrelevant, and it is pretty high quality. Unless you are 2:56 who thinks private practice trumps the DOJ, FPD, and USA Those aren't good enough for 2:56, or more likely 2:56 was probably not good enough for them?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 12:01 am
Reply to  Anonymous

This type of rant reminds me of another federal judge who was very sensitive about her lack of ctedentials. Who could that be?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 1:00 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I am all for shitting on academics without real world experience, especially in the legal academy, but this person seems like an unworthy target. She has a decade of real world experience.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 3:46 am
Reply to  Anonymous

She has to be better than who is on there now. Some of these clowns make Clive Jones look good.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 6:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

4:52- This is 2:56 and actually I had already checked her CV which is why I stated she has (a) no private practice experience; (b) no civil experience; (c) a decade of practice experience which would be the equivalent of putting a 2011 Grad on the Federal Bench today; (d) is more than a decade removed [2008] from practicing law outside of academia and her one year fellowship working on policy related to indigent defense. This is NOT a strong judicial resume. This is not a canned response about anyone who ever touched academia; this is a response to someone well qualified for her position in academia but who is not qualified for the federal bench.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 10:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agree with 11:55. Her private practice experience is not at all impressive to me. A year or two as a clerk, a year or two in the DOJ ENRD section, a year or two as a civil AUSA, six years as a PD, a specialty "access to justice" policy appointment. That's not who should be a trial judge.

I think she is probably a very nice and smart person that is probably a very good professor, and should continue to be a very good professor. But no one asked me and she has the ear of the correct people. So honestly, good for her. If someone ever calls me and offers me a job as a federal judge, I'll take it and laugh at all the anonymous blog posts pointing out why it's such a bad idea.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 6:02 pm

Maybe I can continue to mooch off of my parents.

https://www.newsweek.com/lawyer-sued-parents-london-faiz-siddiqui-1645473

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2021 8:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

That is just too hilarious. Me on the other hand, I had my parents hitting me up for emotional and financial support during the last few years of their lives, while I watched how they mismanaged their finances and lives for the last 25 years until they croaked. Having kids and being kids is the best!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 4:02 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I plan to live long enough to be a burden on my children.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 3:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

9:02 – you got style and goals and I like it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 4, 2021 7:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I concur. #Istandwith9:02!