- law dawg
- 60 Comments
- 3253 Views
By now you have all seen the video of the in-courtroom attack on Judge Mary Kay Holthus. We’ve heard from various sources that, thankfully, neither she nor her marshal (who was hospitalized per the second RJ link below) suffered life threatening injuries. It was impressive to see her marshal, as well as her law clerk Michael Lasso and Chief Deputy District Attorney Jory Scarborough step in to restrain the assailant. We hope all of them recover quickly from this traumatic experience.
- Video: Las Vegas judge attacked at sentencing. [RJ]
- Man who attacked judge refuses to return to court today. [RJ; News3LV]
- A look back at violent courtroom incidents in Nevada. [RJ]
- Retired judge Bill Kephart says courtroom attacks are not far-fetched. [8NewsNow]
- Suit against Nevada public health insurance option filed by state senator, taxpayer group. [TNI]
- Lion Habitat Ranch owner agrees not to deceive consumers about fate of animals. [Nevada Current]
- What do you think about safety in the courtroom? Do you feel safe? What needs to change, if anything?
Kudos to the law clerk to jumped in.
Homeboy was landing those body blows. He should add that to his resume
Everyone is obsessed with the law clerk. He’s the man, the myth, the legend.
Do you remember when everyone was obsessed with his dad always sitting next to Joe Sr. when Joe Sr. just happened to get all of the high profile murder trials?
I have felt less safe at the courthouse since they got rid of marshals at security. We need an attorney line too. We also need to stop being so lenient, people only increase conduct in the absence of consequence. If we don’t all stand up and stand firm, things will only get worse.
Why don’t you use the attorney entrance? I haven’t had to go down there lately, but I’ve always used the entrance used by jurors, LEOs, court staff, and attorneys on the south side of the building.
Doesn’t this entrance close early, like 11:00 a.m.?
This character would have gone through the metal detectors downstairs, so security there is not really the issue. They need more in the courtroom when people are being sentenced like that.
I don’t want to minimize how horrible that attack was, or the heroic actions of those who stepped in to protect the judge. But across the country thousands of people are in similar hearings a day. And these things just don’t happen often. We should be careful not to over-react to one scary but entirely atypical event.
That article about the defendant refusing to go to court is weird. I get the reluctance to deny bail when you haven’t heard from the defendant. But if the defendant *refuses to go to court* then it seems to me he has waived any right to plead for bail. I’m one of those bleeding heart libs who supports bail reform but c’mon, there are limits.
I agree. I would argue that as one of the purposes of bail is to ensure that the Defendant returns to court for future scheduled appearances, that if the Defendant refuses to attend a court hearing while he is in custody, no amount of bail would be sufficient to guarantee his appearance at further proceedings.
He also has a long history of not showing up when he is supposed to, as well as re-offending while out on parole. Keep him locked up where he belongs.
I like her but Laurie is a former PD and is very generous in these cases.
And now his bail is set at $54k after that? Are you kidding me?
The Pro Tem that set bail is a disgrace. Shame on her.
He should be remanded based upon yesterday’s sentencing anyway.
Guess I’m confused. He has been adjudged guilty of the offense before Judge Holthus. True, she hadn’t passed sentence, but that was only because the defendant actively prevented her from doing so. Even if he pays the bail for offense #2, shouldn’t he be remanded until sentencing for offense #1?
This is a great point. So if he posts bail for offense #2, are they going to let him out pending his sentence for offense #1? I wouldn’t be totally surprised if this loophole exists – I think the assumption is that no JotP would allow a defendant who tried to beat up the sentencing judge to post bail.
Exactly. Otherwise he’s able to benefit from his bad acts. She clearly indicated on the record prior to the attack that he was going to face jail time–nothing in his conduct since has demonstrated that her decision was flawed. Get him before another judge to sentence him to jail on the first offense and stop worrying about bail.
Start putting the criminal defendants in an ante room with a marshal and a camera while their attorney argues in the courtroom. We’re lucky yesterday didn’t end a whole lot worse.
Starting to think Valdez-Jiminez was a mistake.
I’m a fan of the law clerk but he needs to learn some grappling. Hammer fists might not have been the best. Although in fairness perhaps he couldn’t get a hold of him in the melee. All these years of watching ufc has turned me into keyboard fighter haha
Or perhaps the logistics of the situation prevented him from striking any other way because friendlies were tangled up in the chaos? Lasso is a hero. Stop criticizing his technique, when we all know you would have frozen in that situation. It is so pathetic for anyone to criticize this young man. Give him the credit he’s due. What’s wrong with you people?
What’s wrong with you. 11:53 was obviously joking – he even said he was a “keyboard fighter” “Haha” etc. Loosen the hell up partner.
And forget the punches. By then it was 3 on 1 with more marshals coming. The main thing he did was jump on top immediately to keep the defendant from getting a couple free punches on the judge right after the superman. He was on him and held him down long enough until more help could join in. My guess is he saved the judge at least a couple real punches to the head. That’s admirable.
I noticed that right away. He jumped on that guy immediately.
Exactly. At that point he only had a limited angle on the guy’s lower right hip. The other DA and the Marshall were occupying the other space. Where was Holthus’ regular Marshall?
https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=63894
More unsurprising stupidity from my least favorite 8JD judge.
This holding is nuts.
The holding is nuts? You mean finding that “excludes” does not mean “includes”? Or “up” does not mean “down”? I would argue that this decision stands for the proposition that Phil Emerson strikes again.
Agree the holding is right. But the rule should be rewritten to make it clear.
The rule is pretty clear to me. “any party may serve an offer in writing to allow judgment to be taken in accordance with its terms and conditions.” It’s up to you to state the terms and conditions of your offer. It’s basically contract law.
The holding is right based on the language of the new rule. But it’s going to discourage settlement now. Lot more people going to test out trial rather than deal with a plaintiff attorney’s attempt to get unreasonable fees post judgment. It’s also going to encourage increased spending on costs and experts by plaintiffs.
So make your offer inclusive and include a vig for fees/costs/interest.
With that said, I have one problem with the decision which is a problem with the rule as intended and written. NRCP 68(d)(2) contemplates that a party (lets be honest defendant) may within “21 days after service of written notice that the offer is accepted. . . may pay the amount of the offer and obtain dismissal of the claims, rather than entry of a judgment.” The benefit is getting a dismissal instead of entry of a judgment. The Cadish Decision expressly states that since fees/costs/interest will not decided within 21 days of the date of acceptance that the benefit of dismissal is off of the table An Offer of Judgment (exclusive) truly will be an offer to have judgment entered against your defendant. With that said, the way one gets around that is to make an offer inclusive of fees and costs.
So basically if you want the dismissal option instead of judgment you have to make your offer inclusive – a one stop shop. Then the 21 day option is definitely available. If it’s exclusive you leave yourself open to judgment being the only option.
The final footnote says that the court deems it appropriate to allow dismissal after the district court addresses costs and interest, but that would almost surely be after 21 days after service of notice of acceptance. It’s not clear how that would work unless you delay service of written notice of acceptance until after those costs/interests proceedings are over. To be safe, I’d say if you want dismissal only offer inclusive. No?
What exactly was emmerson’s plan? i mean, why not just do an offer inclusive of fees and everything else?
Because Cogburn wouldn’t have accepted that offer.
Here is the recording of the argument. Cadish seemed shocked by what Eisenberg was offering. Prejudgment interest is just under 100k now.
https://nvcourts.gov/supreme/arguments/recordings/84647_aguilar_vs._lucky_cab,_co._cw_85538_10.03.23
I’ve always heard Eisenberg is a great lawyer, but he joined on to a shit sandwich on this one.
The young law clerk was fantastic. And his LinkedIn is gold. He says he was a “Dick Jockey” (he meant Disk Jockey). Anyway, he seems like a hardworking young man. Thank you for your service.
The autocorrect speaks volumes about our favorite Law Clerk.
Everyone (especially insurance defense attorneys) needs to read the Aguilar opinion on Offers of Judgment – https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=63894
If the offer excludes costs, interest, fees, then you’re going to be on the hook for those in addition to the amount of the offer.
i thought everyone understood the difference b/t exclusive and inclusive offers — except for Delaney, apparently. I’ve been doing “exclusive offers” as a Plaintiff for years and making my separate application for fees, costs, and interest.
Since we are having a discussion about absolutely bonkers opinions, has anyone researched claim preclusion lately? There are two decisions in the last year (SFR and Bank of New York) that appear to gut claim preclusion and state that so long as a party alleges one new fact there is no claim preclusion.
Re: Aguilar – Did Phil Emerson really think that “exclusive of costs and fees” meant that his client was opting out of liability for those things?
That was my reading – that he though “exclusive of costs and fees” meant a walkaway for that amount only.
I’ve done both plaintiff and defense work, and I can’t think of a case where an OOJ was accepted, and then subsequently there was a discussion about additional amounts for fees, costs, and interest. That (inclusive/exclusive) distinction only came into play when evaluating whether the final judgment “beat” the unaccepted OOJ.
Obviously from here on out, I will only serve inclusive OOJs as defense counsel. Maybe exclusive OOJs as plaintiff, and then seek a full contingency fee if they accept?
I haven’t dealt with this before, but unless there’s some contractual/statutory entitlement to fees, why would you be able to get your contingency fee if they accept?
Right. Plaintiff must have some basis for fees. …under 20k; Higher than an older oj plaintiff served; etc
Since we are telling war stories about Offers of Judgment, I have this one. Case involves claims and counterclaims. Plaintiff makes an OoJ that states “Plaintiff shall pay Defendant $100,000 on the claims, counterclaims and cross-claims in this litigation.” Defendant accepted. Plaintiff recanted and stated that it was a clear and obvious typographical error and mutual mistake because Plaintiff meant to say “Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $100,000 on the claims, counterclaims and cross-claims in this litigation.” Defendant stated not clear and obvious mistake because Defendant had been waiting for Plaintiff to come to their senses and write Defendant a check.
So what happened?
I will just say that Jack Lehman was the judge and let people guess.
It would depend on whether you had Good Jack or Mad Jack on the bench that particular day.
OK not fair to hide the ball. He agreed that an offer and acceptance is an acceptance on the terms in the Offer (just as Cadish did). However he determined that the course of correspondence between the parties established that it was a unilateral mistake which the accepting party should have figured out had the parties reversed before accepting the offer.
Is there a reason why convicted felons are not in handcuffs as a de minimus protection for the court and staff personnel, as well as other people in the courtroom? This is what you get catering to mentally ill people.
Because he was out of custody on bail until sentence was rendered and he was remanded into custody.
He was then basically instantly arrested on a bunch more new crimes, so there was never any real danger this guy was going to walk free on bail. The hyperventilating by some about the guy being out on bail was a bit misplaced and ill informed.
Lasso should run for judge and his campaign picture should be a freeze frame of him swinging and say, “tough on crime”. Kudos to him for going above and beyond his job duties and protecting his judge!
I was thinking that the next candidate for DA would use portions of this video as campaign ads and advocating against pervasive RORs to violent repeat offenders. This dirtbag should have been IN CUSTODY and in cuffs in this courtroom!