- Quickdraw McLaw
- 15 Comments
- 307 Views
- Video has been released showing Alexis Plunkett offering her phone to her client. [News3LV]
- Did you know Judge Kathleen Delaney testified at the original OJ Simpson trial? [RJ]
- Do you know Mary Bacon? [eighthjdcourt blog]
Alexis Plunkett is her own worst enemy but if that's all the state has then she's home free.
If it's just the phone, then I agree. But by her very visible and controversial public behavior and commentary, she is backing the authorities into a corner whereby in order to save face they figure they need to be a lot tougher with her.
Also, don't they have video of a lot more than her passing the phone to him? Isn't there evidence of significant physical/romantic contact during in custody meetings? At least I believe that was what was reported in the initial stages of the news reports.
If they have a video of "sexual conduct with a prisoner" I'd like to see that.
NRS 212.187, 3.  As used in this section, “sexual conduct”:
(a) Includes acts of masturbation, sexual penetration or physical contact with another person’s clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area to arouse, appeal to or gratify the sexual desires of a person.
Interesting, so if all that happened was kissing and breast fondling, I don't think NRS 212.187 applies.
Additionally, the statute as to inmate communications pertains to prisons, there is no subsection pertaining to jail so I think there may be an issue there as well.
The indictment only alleges phone offenses. No other charges.
212.165 has some "jail" language which might support the conspiracy charges but I'm still curious how JP plans to press the "furnishing" language against her.
4.  A prisoner confined in a jail or any other place where such prisoners are authorized to be or are assigned by the sheriff, chief of police or other officer responsible for the operation of the jail, shall not, without lawful authorization, possess or have in his or her custody or control a portable telecommunications device.
An accessory to the crime is chargeable as a principal. The phone got into his possession (such that he was very clearly using it). Unless she claims it was forceably taken, she supplied it to him.
Overcharged. All the more reason that if Alexis would shut up, I might actually side with her to beat this.
Fascinating lawyer story on F. Lee Bailey.
http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a10284185/f-lee-bailey-oj-lawyer-interview/
Another interesting article on a recent topic… "Do Law Firms Enable Alcoholism?" http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/07/24/do-law-firms-enable-alcoholism/?kw=Do%20Law%20Firms%20Enable%20Alcoholism?&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&cn=20170724&src=EMC-Email&pt=AfternoonUpdate
Is it that all of you don't want that dirt to wash off on you, or what? Right out of the Trump playbook.
Huh?
Alexis sucks. Next story.
Prove it, I want video and a confession